Yu Can Eat Mor Chikin Now Again

Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Ordinary Times. Relapsed Lawyer, admitted to practice law (under his real name) in California and Oregon. On Twitter, to his frequent regret, at @burtlikko. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

Related Post Roulette

34 Responses

  1. Glyph says:

    Dammit Burt. That hasn’t happened in years.Report

  2. Kazzy says:

    Awesome! Now they just have to find a charity that doesn’t have a political agenda! That should be a piece of cake!Report

    • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

      Can I recommend GlyphAid? They do really good work.Report

    • Kimmi in reply to Kazzy says:

      aww… but those are the BORING charities.
      (also the ones still using slide-rules.)Report

      • ktward in reply to Kimmi says:

        Funny you should mention slide rules.

        I was watching Apollo 13 the other night (some films never get old) and thought to myself, “I know that I learned how to use a slide rule, but dang if I remember any of it.”

        Which is weird, because I also learned French at the same time I was learning to use a slide rule. But unlike my slide rule learnin’, it turns out I actually retained quite a bit of my French learnin’. (I know this because I’m seriously trying to learn Spanish, and among a bunch of other screw ups, I keep thinking and saying “bien” instead of “bueno”.)Report

  3. Some faith in humanity has been (cautiously) restored!Report

  4. Mike Dwyer says:

    I had Chick-fil-A for breakfast this morning. They could announce tommorow that they oppose bloggers named Mike Dwyer and I would still eat there. But hey, kudos for re-evaluating their position.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Mike Dwyer says:


      Without any snark intended, what would a company have to do to make you stop patronizing them when you otherwise would based on their product or service?Report

      • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

        NSFW, if your boss don’t like swear words, sex scenes w/ no nudity, Israel/Palestine political humor, or Larry David:


        Speaking for myself, I am not sure. The only imperfect product boycotts I have ever really personally participated in were : Cuban restaurant I witnessed basically refusing service to African-Americans (roughly 9 months before I broke down, and went back; they eventually failed anyway) and both Exxon and BP to this day have imperfect boycotts against them by me due to their respective domestic environmental screwups (though I have on occasion purchased gas from both when I had no other real options, like on a road trip and I am out of gas and they are the only available option).Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

          I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that episode. It’s a great one.

          As I think more about this, I wonder how consistent most of us are when it comes to such actions. I know a number of folks here (myself included) opted not to patronize Chik-fil-A after all the brouhaha came about. But I wonder where the line is for those of us in that group. Would California residents have boycotted establishments owned by folks who voted for Prop 8? If not, why? In some ways, actively voting for such a Proposition seems more directly harmful than donating money to a group that supports that overarching ideology. Would it mean boycotting establishments owned by folks who voted for folks who helped to pass DOMA? Because that would eliminate a whole hell of a lot of our options.

          It makes my head hurt.Report

          • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

            And to bring it back around to ‘Palestinian Chicken’, if it had been a halal chicken place donating to anti-gay causes, I wonder how many people here would have boycotted them? Or would they have said, ‘well, yeah, they’re Muslim, that’s what they believe, of course they will donate to those kinds of causes’, as they grabbed their delicious, delicious takeout?

            I mean, I am not particularly surprised when an openly Christian-affiliated organization donates like this, nor would I be surprised if it was an openly Muslim, or Mormon, or whatever other religious organization doing the same. It’s bad for business, obviously, but that’s their choice.

            I personally cut back on Chik-Fil-A since the brouhaha started, but I was not entirely successful in total boycott (I ate there at least once IIRC). Part of the problem is I really do think they put something addictive in the chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly.

            Before this brouhaha started, I had long noticed that if I saw an ad, or thought about Chik-Fil-A, I’d end up there within two days for a sandwich, fries and shake. (Then I’d moan and hold my stomach for an hour afterwards, as it all just sat there like a rock).

            I think there is some psychological aspect to them being closed Sundays; by denying access to their food sometimes, people just want it all the more.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

              Well, the closet one for me is located in a mall in the only county left in America with Sunday blue laws, so it would be closed regardless (restaurants can typically remain open, but those within the mall are typically closed since the mall itself is closed). But, yea, I see your point.

              Unlike many of the liberals I know personally, I am not a cultural relativist. I bristle when folks say something to the effect of, “Republicans are waging a war on women! Oh, Saudi Arabians? They are just following their beliefs and culture.” Hogwash, I say. If a Muslim restaurant acted similarly, I would respond similarly. My level of surprise might be different, but that is more about expectations than it is about the actual appropriateness of a practice. And, for the record, I think Chik-fil-A and its owners, employees, and affiliates should be free to use their money and their unchecked right to free speech however they see fit. Just as I ought to be in deciding where to buy my chicken.

              While we’re on the subject, I should also say that in addition to not being a cultural relativist, I also doubt the cultural superiority of any one culture in its entirety over another. I think many cultural norms are either arbitrary or contextual, thus making it hard to objectively hold one above another. Many, but certainly not all. For instance, I do think it is objectively better to extend equal rights and protections to women as men than it is to not do so; I do not think it is objectively better or worse to shake hands upon greeting someone than it is to bow heads. But now I’m digressing.Report

      • Pyre in reply to Kazzy says:

        For me, they would have to screw me personally. Not a group that I belong to (because I have no desire to lead the life of a monk) but me personally. Even if the screwing is largely cosmetic (Kabam’s continued shitty tech support for Thirst of Night), that is still what it takes to get me to dump a company.Report

  5. North says:

    Good on them I guess. The bottom line remains king at corporate, kind of reassuring.Report

  6. damon says:

    This article contained entirely NOT enough chicks kissing!

    Now that that’s out of the way, ofc it’s a corporate cave. Even if it really wasn’t, it is. Any appearance of caving is caving. Frankly, I’m disappointed, but it’s not unexpected. No one has the balls anymore to stand up for what they believe and endure the slings and arrows of those not willing to live and let live. Plus, in a business sense, no one wants to hinder their economic growth.

    Yah, “It would seem that efforts to block the company’s planned expansion into Chicago and Boston will no longer meet with roadblocks from local officials.” You support that kind of douche bag behavior from elected officials? Disappointing.Report

    • scott a. in reply to damon says:

      I guess I would distinguish public and private here. No public official should have the right to dick over someone with the licensing weapons at their disposal just because he doesn’t like what the business owner believes. That gives ways too much power to government and is the seedbed for corruption and, yes, tyranny. But each of us lives in a community, rubbing elbows with other people, and over time as you get to know someone you decide whether you like or dislike him and how much time you do or don’t want to spend around him. His behavior and his opinions go into influencing that judgment, and if you really don’t like him, and lots of other people don’t like him either, then his social life declines in a big hurry. That’s social ostracism. You can disagree about the particular person involved or how fair/compassionate that is, but I don’t think anyone can disagree that you have a right to spend your time and money where you want with whom you want and to tell other people why you’re doing that. Live and let live? OK, this guy can run a chicken business and tell us all how much he hates gay marriage; he can live his life that way if he wants, and Rahm Emanuel can STFU when it comes to him getting a license. But I don’t have to go there, and since it’s a free country I can convince relatives, friends and strangers not to go either.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to scott a. says:

        I’m fairly confident no one ’round these parts supported the efforts of mayors or other government officials to block Chik-fil-A through the use/abuse of their political power.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to damon says:

      To the contrary, I’m on record as opposing that sort of douchebaggery. As is, I think, every front pager on this blog and nearly every regular member of our commenting community. On that point, there was nearly universal consensus.Report

      • damon in reply to Burt Likko says:

        Kudos guys.

        That’s the way it should be. I’ll give an example as well. When I was growing up in a small town in Wash State, it was discovered that the recently opened new dry cleaners was run buy two neo nazis. This was back when the neo nazis wanted Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. You remember that? 80’s IIRC. Well, I remember a few adult converstations. Most folks just agreed not to patronize them. It wasn’t long before they closed the shop and moved away. That’s the right way to do things.Report

  7. Lawprofsr says:

    Can’t quite figure out if this is how “the market” is supposed to work, or if this is how the First Amendment is supposed to work.Report

  8. Nob Akimoto says:

    Burt, you are my hero.Report

  9. ktward says:

    I don’t eat fast food. Haven’t for years (decades even), having zero to do with whatever bizarre or otherwise offensive opinions might be held any FF CEO.

    But you fast food eaters on this thread?
    I guess I’m supposed to cast judgement. Can I get back to you?

    (Read: I’ve long been more concerned about production and sourcing and quality of food than I am about the ideo/political leanings of any given CEO. Which is not to say that I didn’t find that dude’s statements abhorrent, just that I was unaware that his chicken chain even existed.)Report

  10. Bob2 says:

    Pretty sure Dan Cathy is trying to get around this by being a bundler.Report