Leftridge: Politics and Chicken Make Strange Bedfellows

Dan Cathy: On God and Chicken

It started like this:

Well, guilty as charged. 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.

-Dan Cathy, President & CEO, Chick-fil-A speaking to the Baptist Press earlier this month.

What many people read was:

FUCK YOU, GAYS. YOU CAIN’T EAT NONE OF OUR CHICKEN SAMMICHES. GO BACK TO BEIN’ GAY AND LEAVE US ALL ALONE.

-Dan Cathy, President, CEO, Jerk-Ass and Probable Homosexual, whispering sexily into his boyfriend Satan’s ear

So people reacted.

Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno cries fowl

Boston mayor Thomas Menino lobbed the first retaliatory grenade by telling Cathy—in an eloquently penned letter, even!—that his company wasn’t allowed to build a restaurant within city limits.

Ed Helms, star of films like The Hangover and television’s The Office, tweeted “Chick-fil-A doesn’t like gay people? So lame. Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan.

Next came Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno. When the feathered empire proposed a second Chicago area store—this one in Moreno’s 1st Ward—he moved to block the opening using a rarely wielded technique called “aldermanic privilege.”

In an opinion piece for the Chicago Tribune, Moreno stated, “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel later released a statement pledging his support for the decision.

So what’s the correct line of thinking here, anyway? IS there a correct line of thinking?

The thing is, Chick-fil-A has been donating to anti-gay groups for years—something that I guess I assumed most people already knew.

They’re not alone in their narrow-minded views.

Wal-Mart doesn’t offer domestic partner benefits to employees. ExxonMobil and AutoZone, same thing. Salvation Army has a notoriously poor track record when it comes to same-sex relations and Dish Network doesn’t carry gay-oriented channels like Logo.

Look, if Chick-fil-A wants to remind me that God Hates Fags while I eat one of their “southern-style” fried chicken sandwich-burgers, that’s fine. That’s their business. I don’t know how sound it is to isolate such a large potential constituency—homosexual folks and their straight supporters—but what do I know about running a chicken sandwich stand? (answer: very little)

And if Boston wants to tell Chick-fil-A “fuck off, we don’t need your hate-chicken and the 90 jobs you’ll bring,”(estimation from Chicago franchisee) then I suppose that’s THEIR business.

Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about it from both of them.

The sandwich that launched a thousand arguments

Chick-fil-A needs to simply shut the fuck up. God had nothing to do with the pickle-placement; let’s leave him out of this shit. At the same time, I don’t need politicians making my dining decisions FOR me, based off of their own personal beliefs.

I simply want the right to eat chicken and STILL support dudes’ right to marry other dudes. It’s an artery clogging food-like product, not a goddamn gateway for moral discourse.

I don’t eat with my brain for the same reason I don’t read books with my penis: it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Chick-fil-A should stop ruining my experience by talking about butt-fucking, and Boston and Chicago should allow me to eat my greasy, heavy-breaded bird-meat within their city limits if I damn well please.

This entry was posted in News_and_Views and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Leftridge: Politics and Chicken Make Strange Bedfellows

  1. Super Dave says:

    Damn good rant Brandon, have to agree with about 99% of it.

    • Brandon Leftridge says:

      Thanks, SD. I’m clearly passionate about chicken sandwiches. Or tolerance. Or both.

  2. Rick Nichols says:

    Maybe the best thing about Chick-fil-A is the fact that they’re not open for business on Sundays. But I’m sure someone will come along and say they don’t have the right to make that decision since it’s obviously based on the Bible-based beliefs held by the owners. It’s a free country, or at least it used to be, so those who disagree with Chick-fil-A’s views and values are certainly welcome to either frequently patronize the competition or start their own chicken sandwich restaurant. Unless Chick-fil-A is guilty of discrimination in serving someone because of their sexual orientation, they really don’t have anything to apologize for at this point.

  3. smartman says:

    All Dan Cathy did was rally the base. Chick-fil-A will probably break sales records on August 1 due to the clarion call sent out to Christians by Mike Huckabee and Billy Graham. His opinion is not that different from the majority of Americans, many of whom own small, medium and large businesses. Because you think it and don’t say it does that make it better?

    Once you let the homos legally marry then the fucking ACLU will come along and defend beastiality, necrophiliac-ality NAMBLA-ality and all sorts of plural marriages. Give ‘em an inch and they want the whole 24″ double dildo.

    I have no issue with same sex couples being able to cover their lays du jour on health care plans or extend any other benefits normally bestowed on heterosexual couples but the whole marriage thing is a slippery slope covered with Astro Glide that will not stop with Gary and Steve or Mary and Eve.

    Gays make up roughly 2-3% of the population. In politics that’s a rounding error. In war that’s acceptable collateral damage. In other words go pick a fight you can actually win.

    • Brandon Leftridge says:

      “Once you let the homos legally marry then the fucking ACLU will come along and defend beastiality, necrophiliac-ality NAMBLA-ality and all sorts of plural marriages.”

      Smartman– PLEASE tell me you were joking here. PLEASE.

  4. The truth says:

    With the amount of homo talk being shoved down our throat, you would think they make up 30% of the population. It is more like 2%……. Enough already, just don’t eat there if you don’t like their free speech. I bet their business actually goes up now, people are tired of all the gay power shit!

    • Brandon Leftridge says:

      Wow…

      • The truth says:

        Yes wow… There is so much talk about gay rights now, it is way over the top. There are comparisons being made to the civil rights era. But, I don’t see us making gays sit in the back of a bus or use different bathrooms.

        Where does it stop. Should marriage be between a man and two women? Do we ban a fast food place if they are against bigamy…..come on!

  5. chuck says:

    That Buffalo Sauce and a cold Zima puts the gaylights in my Chuck-Fil-A hair!

    The gays are ok with me, they never wanna kick your ass, always pay their bills and are as civilized and conversant as they come. Always very nice folks.

    Tempest in a tea pot.

    Lefty is right, Cathy is a loud mouth and if Rahm Emmanual tells me I shouldn’t go somewhere and eat, I am sending that shitheel a postcard from the foyer and buying stock.

    I do think that serious conversation about sexual mores from a man named “Cathy” invites no little humor, which I anticipate we will all enjoy soon on the Daily Show, or SNL etc. etc.

    It’s just too fuckin easy.

    JOY BEHAR: “Mr. Cathy before we begin the interview, what are you wearing, right now?”

    DAN CATHY: “Hope you like feathers!!!”

    • smartman says:

      The blacks in Chicago are gonna be pissed that The Godfather won’t let Chick-fil-A open up in the city proper. More deaths to come as a result. Of more interest is Rahm’s recent association with Louis Farakahn and the Nation of Islam to try and help reduce crime in the “community”. Last time I checked the Nation of Islam wasn’t too keen on same sex marriage or Jews.

      • chuck says:

        I have always enjoyed Louis Farakahn’s Red Herring statements with respect to Arab ethnic cleansing in the Sudan by his Koran carrying Janjaweed “Brothers”.

        President Clinton, the Wizard of Is, suffered through far less painful verbal contortions than Louie with regard this subject.

        “Sudan’s blacks are predominantly Christian. The real and undeniably racist mandates in the Koran, the virtual but between-the-lines inference that infidels are those who are not of Arabic blood or descent, has inspired the Janjaweed to launch their blitzkriegs against Darfur. With Adolf Hitler as their model and the equivalent of the Kaiser’s government behind them, Sudanese Arabs are slaughtering Black Africans by the tens of thousands.”

        Maybe those bow tied badasses that Mr. Farakahn has released into Chicago proper, will, when their mandate is complete, join the struggle along side their black brothers to repel their Muslim brothers.

        That, smarty, would be a confusing day in the field.

        • chuck says:

          By the way, here are some quotes smarty from the honorable Kalid Abdul Muhammed.

          “We kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies. We kill the blind, we kill the crippled, . . . we kill ‘em all. We kill the faggot, we kill the lesbian, we kill them all.”

          “”I say you call yourself Goldstein, Silverstein and Rubinstein because you [sic] stealing all the gold and silver and rubies all over the earth. . . . we call it jewelry but it’s really Jew-elry, Jew-elry because of your deiving [sic] and stealing and rogueing [sic] and lying all over the face of the planet earth.” (Baltimore, MD, February 19, 1994)

          “I called them [Jews] bloodsuckers. I’m not going to change that. Our lessons talk about the bloodsuckers of the poor in the supreme wisdom of the Nation of Islam. It’s that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating, Johnny-come-lately perpetrating a fraud, just crawled out of the caves and hills of Europe, so-called damn Jew.”

          There is plenty more, but, suffice to say, this is Louis Farakahn’s number one man until shortly before his (Kahlid) death in 2001.

        • smartman says:

          Don’t know when they’d fine time to actually do battle in between selling The Final Call and bean pie’s. The Nation of Islam, in all of its’ iterations and associations exists for one reason; to scare the hell out of white people. Calypso Louis and his soldiers ain’t gonna do shit to stop the gang banging in Chicago. If Elijah Muhammad, Malcom X and MLK were alive today they’d be taking real action to solve the problems in the “community”. The message of the Nation of Islam today in the “community” might as well be Donnie and Marie singing I’m a little bit country, I’m a little bit rock ‘n roll.

  6. mike says:

    I have no problem with someone boycotting a business for not agreeing with the views of the c.e.o. I do, however, have a problem with political leaders banning them from their cities based on that. What ever happened to freedom of speech? When a government official penalizes a business based on voicing their personal religious beliefs, that is violating their constitutional rights.

  7. the dude says:

    Speaking of the biblical definition of a family, wasn’t Abraham deemed a good family man in the eyes of the lord? How many wives did he have and how many of his slaves bore his children? The bible is pretty vague on the marriage issue, not the best place to look for guidance.

  8. smartman says:

    HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

    Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of the medieval Christian church, the demands of the Protestant Reformation, and the social impact of the Industrial Revolution.

    When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.

    On the other hand, it may surprise many modern couples to learn that in earlier times divorce was often easily granted. Here again, men usually had the advantage when they could simply dismiss their wives, but in many instances women could also sue for divorce. In ancient Rome couples could even divorce each other by mutual agreement, a possibility that has not yet returned to all European countries. Another notable historical fact is the nearly universal stress on the necessity of marriage and the resulting pressure on single persons to get married. This pressure was partially lifted only under the influence of Christianity which, at least for some time, found a special virtue in celibacy. Christian doctrines have, of course, also had their effects on marriage itself, and some of these will be discussed below.

    Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome

    In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.

    However, while marriage was deemed important, it was usually treated as a practical matter without much romantic significance. A father arranged the most advantageous marriage for his son and then had a contract signed before witnesses. Shortly thereafter a wedding celebration was held and the young couple (who might never have met before) was escorted to bed. All marriages were monogamous. As a rule, the bridegroom was in his thirties and the bride was a teenager. In addition to this disparity in ages there also existed an inequality in education and political rights. Women were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home. Their main function as wives was to produce children and to manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs. For their erotic needs, men often turned to prostitutes and concubines. As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: “We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring.” Many men also cultivated intense emotional and sexual relationships with male adolescents (paiderastia). The legal inequality of the sexes was further reflected in the divorce regulations. It was always easier for a husband to divorce his wife than vice versa. However, since a divorced woman could take her dowry back with her, men normally asked for a divorce only in cases of female adultery and infertility.

    The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval. Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single. There were several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple’s living together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms of marriage and divorce were equally valid. All marriages were monogamous. Both men and women usually entered their first marriage in their late teens.

    While the Romans tolerated prostitution and concubinage, and had no qualms about homosexual relationships, their marriage laws were remarkably fair to women and thus greatly contributed to their emancipation.

    Marriage in Ancient Israel

    As we can learn from the Bible, the ancient Israelites had a patriarchal family structure. The status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was procreation and the perpetuation of a man’s name. Every healthy person was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) Divorce was not encouraged, but permitted if a man found some “uncleanness” in his wife. In such a case, he simply wrote her a bill of divorce and sent her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1). However, it was virtually impossible for a wife to divorce her husband.

    The Bible indicates that the marriage laws and customs of Israel changed somewhat in the course of time. Thus, divorces were increasingly frowned upon, and there was a general trend toward monogamy. Another change concerned the so-called levirate (i.e., the man’s obligatory marriage to his brother’s widow). This kind of marriage was at times required (Deuteronomy 25:5) and at other times prohibited (Leviticus 20:21). This change was probably related to changing economic conditions.

    It was usually the patriarch who selected a bride for his son and who paid a “bride price” to her father. The acceptance of this bride price constituted a legally binding betrothal, which was followed by some wedding celebration when the bride took up residence with her new family. Both males and females married in their early teens, shortly after puberty. Theoretically, therefore, neither sex was subjected to any lengthy period of sexual frustration. Still, because of an unquestioned sexual double standard, men had a far greater opportunity for sexual fulfillment than women.

    Marriage in Medieval Europe

    The rise of Christianity produced a profound change in European marriage laws and customs, although this change came about only gradually. The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.

    In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and treated women little better than domestic slaves. In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride’s father (“sale marriage”). The symbol of a successful “bride sale” was the ring (a form of down payment) which was given to the bride herself. Acceptance of the ring constituted betrothal. The full payment of the “bride price” was made on delivery, i.e., when the actual wedding took place. (Since then, the ring has acquired many other symbolic meanings and, indeed, is still used in our modern marriage ceremonies.) The civilizing influence of the church soon refined these primitive customs. According to Roman law and Christian belief, marriage could be built only on the free consent of both partners, and this doctrine was bound to raise the status of women. Furthermore, theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments. This also endowed a formerly rather prosaic arrangement with a new dignity.

    Unfortunately, at the same time the church created two new problems: It abolished divorce by declaring marriage to be insoluble (except by death) and greatly increased the number of marriage prohibitions. Now there were three basic impediments to marriage: “consanguinity”, “affinity”, and “spiritual affinity”. Consanguinity (i.e., relationship by blood) was interpreted very broadly up to the 6th or even 7th degree. This meant that nobody could marry anyone more closely related than a third cousin. Affinity referred to a mysterious closeness between the two families of husband and wife. Since the latter were seen as having become “one flesh”, all relatives on both sides also became related to each other, a circumstance which made marriage between any of them impossible. Spiritual affinity was said to exist between godparents and godchildren with their families.

    As a result of these new regulations, the influence of the church on marriage was greatly strengthened. Very often extensive clerical investigations were necessary to prove or disprove the existence of impediments. For example, marriages that had been entered in ignorance or defiance of such impediments were considered null and void. In these cases the church was therefore willing to pronounce an “annulment”. Since divorce was no longer permitted, an annulment was the only way of dissolving a marriage, and thus many married couples who had tired of each other sooner or later conveniently discovered some previously overlooked marriage impediment. The church also began to post so-called banns before each wedding, inviting anyone with knowledge of an impediment to come forward. The growing church involvement in marriage could further be seen in the development of a special religious wedding ceremony. In the first Christian centuries marriage had been a strictly private arrangement. As late as the 10th century, the essential part of the wedding itself took place outside the church door. It was not until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings. Nevertheless, it remained understood that, even as a sacrament, marriage sprang from the free consent of the two partners, and that therefore neither the parents nor the priest nor the government could affect its validity. It thus became possible for couples to get married secretly if they could not obtain anyone else’s approval. It also became possible for very young children to be married, if their parents could coax the necessary consent out of them. Especially aristocratic families often took advantage of this possibility when they found a politically advantageous match for their little sons or daughters. On the average, however, males married in their mid-twenties, and females in their early teens (i.e., soon after their first menstruation).

    Today it may be tempting to see medieval marriage in the light of certain lofty religious doctrines and the poetry of the troubadours. However, throughout most of the Middle Ages and for the greater part of the population marriage remained a practical, economic affair. Romantic love hardly had any place in it. Moreover, the social and legal status of women, while somewhat improved in some countries, continued to be very low.

    Marriage in Modern Europe and America

    The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be “a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government”, and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting “marriage to be no sacrament” and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived. Luther and other Protestants also reduced the number of marriage impediments. Affinity and spiritual affinity were no longer considered obstacles, and consanguinity was interpreted much more narrowly than before. Thus, even marriages between first cousins became possible.

    The Catholic church, in response to the Protestant challenge, took its stand in the Council of Trent and, in 1563, confirmed its previous doctrines. Indeed, it now demanded that all marriages take place before a priest and two witnesses. Among other things, this virtually eliminated not only secret marriages, but also the formerly common informal marriages. These, similar to the old Roman marriages by usus, were based simply on mutual consent without formal ceremony. In England they came to be called “common law marriages”, and since Henry VIII had broken with Rome, they continued to be permitted until 1753, when the Church of England was put in charge of all marriages (including those of Catholics, but excluding those of Quakers and Jews). This development did not affect the English colonies, however, and thus common law marriages remained possible in America. (As recently as 1970 they were still recognized in several states.)

    In most of Europe marriages continued to require a religious ceremony until the French Revolution in 1792 introduced the compulsory civil marriage. Germany followed suit in the 19th century when Bismarck diminished the influence of the Catholic church. Eventually, marriage before some magistrate or government official became the only valid form of marriage in most of the Western world. Religious weddings were still permitted, but only after the civil ceremony had taken place.

    Another contested issue was that of divorce. In opposition to Catholic doctrine, the Protestant Reformers did not believe that marriage was insoluble, but favored divorce under special circumstances. The Puritan John Milton in his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce (1643) even advocated self-divorce without the involvement of either church or government. For him, marriage rested entirely on the full compatibility of both partners. Where mutual love was lacking, marriage was a sham and had to be dissolved. However, this philosophy was too far ahead of its time. The English Parliament began to grant some divorces, but the procedure was so cumbersome and expensive that few couples could take advantage of it.
     

    UNCONVENTIONAL FORMS OF MARRIAGE IN 19TH-CENTURY AMERICA

    Marital experiments are nothing new. Especially the United States has an interesting history of attempts at marriage reform.

    The Oneida Community

    Founded by John Noyes in 1948, the Oneida colony in upstate New York cultivated a form of group marriage called “complex marriage” in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced “scientific breeding” in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health. The picture shows this special breed of children playing in front of their proud parents.

    Mormon Polygamy

    The members of the Mormon church were relentlessly persecuted, harassed, and ridiculed because of their polygamy. Finally, they were forced to abandon the practice. The picture is a satirical cartoon commenting on the death of Brigham Young in 1877. tl shows twelve widows in the same marital bed mourning the death of their husband.
     
    A more efficient divorce court was not established until the middle of the 19th century. In colonial America the Puritans permitted divorce in certain specific cases, but it remained prohibited in all Catholic countries until the French Revolution and the Napoleonic code introduced it to France. After Napoleon, divorce was abolished again by the restored monarchy, but it was reinstated by the Second Republic in 1884. Still, divorce remained impossible in Italy, Portugal, and Spain, until Italy finally legalized it in 1970.

    Monogamy was and still is the only accepted form of marriage in both Catholic and Protestant countries, although Luther condoned polygyny in exceptional cases. (He “unofficially” permitted Landgrave Philip of Hesse to take two wives.) Nevertheless, such old biblical customs had become repugnant to most modern Christians, and when, in the 19th century, the Mormons revived the practice of polygyny in America, they were so relentlessly persecuted that they abandoned it.

    The gradual emancipation of marriage and divorce laws from the control of the church resulted in greater individual freedom and further raised the status of women. The parents began to lose influence over the marital choices of their children, and romantic love became an important factor in marriage. Even so, for most couples until well into the 19th century marriage was still basically an economic arrangement. Moreover, the husband was usually the one who profited most, because he was the “head of the household” and controlled his wife’s property. He also had many other rights denied to his wife and was favored by a moral double standard that allowed him considerable sexual license. Under the circumstances, women continued to press for further reforms, a process which even today has not yet fully reached its goal. (See also “The Social Roles of Men and Women.”)

    • Super Dave says:

      Well folks there you have it. Ain’t a prson alive who can top what the smartman just slapped you with.

  9. chuck says:

    I was eternally modified on July 26th at 10:04 PM

    chuck says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    July 26, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    That Buffalo Sauce and a cold Zima puts the gaylights in my Chuck-Fil-A hair!

    The gays are ok with me, they never wanna kick your ass, always pay their bills and are as civilized and conversant as they come. Always very nice folks.

    Tempest in a tea pot.

    Lefty is right, Cathy is a loud mouth and if Rahm Emmanual tells me I shouldn’t go somewhere and eat, I am sending that shitheel a postcard from the foyer and buying stock.

    I do think that serious conversation about sexual mores from a man named “Cathy” invites no little humor, which I anticipate we will all enjoy soon on the Daily Show, or SNL etc. etc.

    It’s just too fuckin easy.

    JOY BEHAR: “Mr. Cathy before we begin the interview, what are you wearing, right now?”

    DAN CATHY: “Hope you like feathers!!!”

  10. mike says:

    The issue isn’t even whether what Dan Cathy said was right or wrong. It is whether or not he has the right to say it without goverment ramifications. Eat ther or don’t eat there. That is your right. I just don’t see where a mayor should have a right to deny them the right to do business in their city if they meet all the legal requirements just because they disagree with an opinion of the c.e.o.

  11. rkcal says:

    Never have I been more entertained whilst taking my morning constitutional.

  12. Jim says:

    If marriage was ONLY a religeous ceremony, then each religion would be free to practice it, recognize it and celebrate it. But, that is NOT what marriage is in the eyes of the government. It is a legally binding contract that entitles those who choose to exercise this right to ALL kinds of tax benefits, health benefits, SS benefits, etc. etc. Practice whatever religion you want. To me, they are ALL freaking cults that brainwash their members, but I digress. For a religeous institutions that enjoy TAX FREE status to be able influence the FEDERAL government in the matter of who can and cannot get married is comical. The fact that people can get married in a courthouse, rose garden, floating barge, Vegas, a sporting event or any damn place they want PROVES that it is a LEGAL ceremony, not a religeous one. The fact that Bob and Bill want to get married and enjoy all the same benefits that every other married couple has doesn’t impact my life one fucking bit. If it gets your panties in a wad, that says more about you than it does Bob and Bill.

    • the dude says:

      That is part of the problem, government should not be involved with marriage, it should concern itself with civil unions that have all the legal trappings of marriage. Leave marriage to church, government gets and administers civil unions then you can get insurance and other legal goodies for teh gheys that want to get hitched.

      Problem solved and we can get back to eating chicken sammiches again.

  13. Super Dave says:

    Chick-fil-A released a statement saying, “We are saddened to report the news to you that our dear friend Don Perry, vice president of public relations, passed away suddenly this morning.”

    Damn did they kill the PR man wih this? Was the pressure to much?

    • Brandon Leftridge says:

      Hmm… HOW CONVENIENT. Smells like a deep-fried conspiracy to me, actually.

      Shit, too soon? Alright, WAY too soon.

  14. bob sanders says:

    Leftridge makes glazer look like a genius. Worst writer ever. Pure trash!

    • Brandon Leftridge says:

      Cool, Bob. Thanks for the input! :)

      • chuck says:

        Just a point of info here Lefty.

        Bob Sanders won the Indianapolis Colts the Super Bowl.

        He came back after 8 games injured, the guy was always injured, and dominated every team the Colts played.

        His efforts in those games, might have been the most impressive play seen in the NFL since Jerry Rice retired.

        Just sayin…, if Bob fuckin Sanders is reading your shit, your a leg up on most of us.

        • Brandon Leftridge says:

          Haha– that was my thought, too. I wonder how he stumbled upon this site? And he seems familiar with Glazer’s work, as well, even going so far as to refer him by last name only! Will wonders never cease?! It’s a magical day here on KCC.

          Have a good one, Chuck!

        • Brandon Leftridge says:

          Hold on, hold on… this is great.

          According to the IP address, Bob Sanders is…

          wait for it…

          wait for it…

          HARLEY!!!!

          Not. Even. Kidding.

          Thanks for chiming in, Har!

          • smartman says:

            Lefty, you realize that Harley is short for Harland. Yeah, he is THAT Harland Sanders. Bob is just one of his many cover names.

    • mike says:

      I heard that Hearne was looking for writers. With all of your immense journalistic credentials, you need to get on here and show everyone how it is done. Someone as knowledgable and talented as you are is what this website has been needing for years. Just think. The first Pulitzer prize on this website could be yours!

  15. mike says:

    Of course I was talking to Bob Sanders. I hope noone else thinks I was talking about them. I don’t want anyone else to be delusional and think they are even close to being on his level!

  16. Brandon Leftridge says:

    @smartman: it ALL goes back to the CHICKEN. Holy shit! This thing runs deep. If I don’t post within the next week, please alert the media. And tell the cops to check my apartment for conspicuous chicken feathers. (you know, as opposed to the INCONSPICUOUS ones)

  17. Ranger Danger says:

    Screw Rosie O’donnel, Roseanne, the Baldwins, and the rest of the PC Hollywood crowd. Screw these mayors trying to buy votes by banning business. These are the phoniest asswipes on earth.

    I’ll be greasing on chicken all day tomorrow as soon as they open. Burp in advance.