Talk:Chick-fil-A

Though the CFA is affiliated with many hateful organizations I think that it is great that these people have taken the law into their own hands through the affiliations with the KKK and Neo-Nazis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.95.6 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view, which means editors are not supposed to insert their own personal views into articles. The asserted quotation is not inclusive of the complete sentences from CCV's website. The complete two sentences read (bolding mine):

Both the Old and New Testaments clearly state God’s intention for human sexuality: the monogamous, lifelong sexual union of one man and one woman. Any departure from that Divine order is a distortion of God’s intention for human sexuality, including not only homosexual behavior, but also rape, incest, :pedophilia, premarital sex, adultery, bestiality, pornography and any other sexual expression outside this Scriptural norm.

Regardless of what the website states about the organization's beliefs, the website also indicates that Chik-fil-A is not a major sponsor of this golf-tournament, it is the lunch sponsor, it seems to be providing lunch (for a golf tournament that last year raised a total of $15,000). If CCV is truly notable/notorious enough to inculcate this ongoing recent series of edits & reverts today then perhaps a more appropriate place to explore these various issues in-depth would be its own article (as the organization does at least get a passing mention in American_Family_Association). --- Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edit noting they are a minor sponsor. That being said, the fact of the matter is that they compare homosexuality to rape, bestiality, incest and pedophilia. That's what they say, in black in white, and if we need to quote the entire sentence rather than summarize it, I'm happy with that. It's just the facts, not my point of view, and if needed, we can include a blurb on some or all of their other issues if that would make it more "balanced".

However, homosexuality is the ONLY issue they take a position on--"where we stand". All of the other issues (pornography, gambling, etc.) are just links to various articles and information, mostly from Family Research Council, etc.

Calling them a "conservative religious organization" does not convey the degree of their beliefs, especially around homosexuality, and is itself a subjective reference. Some may think of them as a conservative religious organization, others may consider them a propaganda machine, churning out hate-filled lies to scare their constituency, which eventually ends up in gays being bashed in the name of the lord.

And the whole point to this is that people need to know exactly the type of organization that Chick-fil-A sponsors, and exactly what they stand for, without having to click on a footnote, and the most notable thing about this particular organization is their stance on homosexuality, rather than their stance on human trafficking, for instance. Everyone "for" human trafficking raise their hand!! Hopefully that helps explain why I think it's vital the comparison to bestiality etc. needs to be in the main body of the article. It's noteworthy, especially when a multi-billion dollar company sponsors the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.121.154 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@"they're the lunch sponsor": So I guess if McDonald's catered a meeting of NAMBLA, they would just say "well we just agree with them on freedom of speech stuff..dont take our sponsorship as agreeing with EVERYTHING they stand for" SuperAtheist (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though Nazis are often considered as bad, they have many important values that the rest of the world could learn from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.95.6 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Chick fil a mobile (iPhone) page has been vandalized and has disguisting racist text. Please correct.

74.232.69.91 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done I think. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 05:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're sorry, the page you have reached is the Wikipedia Talkpage for the Wikipedia article about the company Chik-fil-A. This page is not an arm of the company and is not a way to directly contact the company itself. If you have an issue about a company product, policy or company entity (like the official iPhone app), this is not the place to report those thoughts or feelings. Googling the company name and contacting the company directly would be a better option of effecting the desired change. Shearonink (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added "religious organization" to the first-paragraph description of Chick-fil-A because, according to the Forbes article referenced, the company's core mission is to "glorify God," not to sell chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC) The founder is an islamic christian who imigrated to Pakistan in 1458 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.95.6 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. It damages Chick-fil-A's image to be open about religious affiliations in the opening. In order to best spread Christianity, particularly to children and teenagers, I think we can all agree that we should not allow such negative connotations in the lead. This is Chick-fil-A's mission statement and I don't think we should interfere with that 202.171.168.178 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Some copy needs to be added to the bottom of the "Religious connections" section referring to the controversy in Pennsylvania.

The additional information needs to read:

Responding to the incident on their Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said “First and foremost, thanks for your patience as we made sure we gathered the facts in regards to recent postings. We have determined that one of our independent Restaurant Operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars. As our fans, you know we do our best to serve our local communities, and one of the ways we do that is by providing food to schools, colleges, civic groups, businesses, places of worship, not-for-profit groups, etc. At his discretion, the local Operator agreed to simply provide a limited amount of food. Our Chick-fil-A Operators and their employees try very hard every day to go the extra mile in serving ALL of our customers with honor, dignity and respect.”

The link to the Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/ChickfilA

Bharrisuga (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truett himself is quoted as saying Chik-fil-A is closed on Sundays as a way of "honoring God." Dan, his son, says Truett told him they closed on Sunday because Truett was "worn out," just tired, and because it wasn't a busy restaurant day. Should we leave in Dan's contradiction of his father's explanation? 98.246.191.164 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia's accuracy relies on statements that are verifiable and from reliable sources. Both quotes are verifiable so both quotes should stay in. Shearonink (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gilgoff, Dan. "Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA." CNN. February 4, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: 1) the stated source link now gives a 404 error and 2) the current locator page[1] says there is one in Boise, Idaho (Boise State University), so the map seems to be out-of-date. 76.121.3.85 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out, as the US map doesn't seem to exist any more on the Chick-Fil-A website. I've gone ahead and deleted it from the article (but any editor could have done the same). Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS... If anyone's still watching for the map..good news, it's baaaaaack. Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what's going on with the addition/reversion cycle re: this particular banner as evidenced here... Thanks, Shearonink

The company identifies as a Christian company. I feel that it should be tagged as such, however other watchers of this page disagree. --AdmrBoltz 04:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated it. Generally speaking, if a wikiproject wants to tag a page, it's allowed. The mere tagging of a talk page isn't a political statement, it's just an indication that a particular topic is of interest to that project. Dayewalker (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a discussion about the banner posted at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page. If enough people from the project feel that the banner isn't warranted, it can be removed. Feel free to voice your opinions as to why the banner is/isn't relevant there as well. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it worth mentioning in this article the controversy this company has in its associations with N.O.M. and other hate groups designated by the Southern poverty Law Center.

98.198.63.94 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)JustinTexas[reply]

I am not a fan of the anit-gay mention previously in the original company description at the top of the article. Although CFA has certainly entertained some controversy, there is no definitive acknowledgment of anti-gay views by the company or its founders. What is generally referenced as a national endorsement of an anti-gay group was in actuality an isolated incident in Pennsylvania by a local restaurant owner. If worth mentioning in this article, it should be included in its own topic section, referencing the "2011 Anti-Gay Controversy Involving Chick-fil-A" (Austinlee22 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinlee22 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]