Skip to comments.Latest message from the Chick-fil-A Facebook page
Posted on 09/20/2012 2:39:48 PM PDT by lowbridge
For many months now, Chick-fil-As corporate giving has been mischaracterized. And while our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate, events from Chicago this week have once again resulted in questions around our giving. For that reason, we want to provide some context and clarity around who we are, what we believe and our priorities in relation to corporate giving. For a better understanding of our corporate giving, please see the attached document titled Chick-fil-A: Who We Are. This is the same document provided and referred to in coverage surrounding Chicago
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
I read it too and it looks like they are trying to keep everyone happy in a PC way and not trying to offend anyone on both sides. I still think they will lose a significant amount of business from Christians for being cowardly.
There are people who are desperate to make CFA guilty, it appears.
They (CFA) have written a statement explaining who they fund and who they have always funded, yet it’s not good enough because the press is saying something different.
CL if you are content to live in a world of suspicion be my guest, I do not live in fear or suspicion.
I beleive CFA’s statement.
So good luck to you.
Did you not read their document on Facebook? From that it looks like they haven’t backed from their position at all. Regardless of what the Chicago alderman said.
I read both.
Apparently Chick-FIl-A has modified it’s support of those groups the homosexual agenda has targeted for the initial boycott, enough to satisfy Chicago government to change their opposition to the restaurant opening in Moreno’s ward.
If there is spin, it’s being spun by Moreno and Rahm’s boys in Chicago. And that is the narrative established. Chick-Fil-A better clarify this and set the record straight whether or not they will continue to fund those groups that prompted the original boycott to begin with.
I also read both, and have come to the completely opposite conclusion. This is the nature of PR: Never say something that will PO one side or the other, and let the consumer read into the statement what they will.
Ok, guys you just do what you need to do.
Why not talk just to each other since you apparently beleive CFA guilty.
I truly don’t find anything in their statement that points to anything; but who they are; but the Lefties would love to divide and conquer.
Oooh! Great Straw Man argument there. Is that all you got?
“There are people who are desperate to make CFA guilty, it appears. They (CFA) have written a statement explaining who they fund and who they have always funded, yet its not good enough because the press is saying something different.”
THAT IS NOT THE POINT. If I were DEFAMED publicly, I would identify it and respond to it.
Specifically, I would write something like the following:
“In the past week, there have been news reports that we will not longer will fund organizations committed to keeping marriage exclusively defined as between one man and one woman. Let us state outright that we will continue to donate to those groups, and, in fact, don’t be surprised if we double our donations, just to make our point.”
THAT IS WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR.
Not something like: “We have and will always fund groups that share our values.”
If they’re not up to a strong statement, perhaps they should get rid of their gay PR guy (all PR guys are gay) and do what’s needed. A lot of us, at this point, feel USED by them.
I didn’t say anything about guilt or innocence. I said there was more to the story than just what the PDF says and posted the Times link.
What is curious however, - is that if there has been no change in CF’s positions or funding (which prompted the homosexual uproar to begin with), why is it that the homosexual groups are declaring victory because CF is changing it’s policies?
What kind of tactic is being used here by the groups that wanted government to deny the chain the ability to operate?
That's what I see too. For this, I now hate CFA, according to a couple of folks. Meanwhile. we have a sourced story from Washington Times (no liberal outlet) that CFA is throwing Focus on the Family, specifically, under the bus.
Svcw is playing “straw man” with us. Claiming we’re saying something that we are not.
Why are they saying something that is not said, you are kidding right?
Liberals and their ilk are liars, it is that simple, how you would not know that, is a mystery.
Ok, you beleive what you want.
I find it amazing that you apparently believe what homosexual radicals say over what CFA is saying, no biggie really in the scheme of things, they (CFA) make really good spicy chicken sandwiches and I will continue to eat them.
You are just so cute. Good bye
Oh thank God! It's like getting a telemarketer to hang up on me!
Yes... keep reading.
You may continue fluminating now..
You are reading waaaay too much into what I posted - which was at first only a statement that there is more to the story and a link.
You are asserting what my beliefs are in this.
I know perfectly well that Leftists lie.
They have to.
I said I was curious why the homo lobby and the Chicago machine are making the claims CFA has ‘changed course’ - and wondered aloud what tactic this was supposedly trying to achieve.
I opined that if this is some attempt to set the narrative, then CFA needs to get out ahead of their attempts and clearly set the record straight without any potential wiggle room so as to avoid an appearance of evil (or at least capitulation).