In reply to nocones:
Some people just think all fast food is disgusting, so the best of it will never rise above mediocre. I agree with you, pretty much. Chik-Fil-A food is pretty good, and the stores are always clean and staffed by helpful and polite people.
Chris_V wrote: Can we use this quote when someone discusses Hitler? He's dead, too, so we can only say nice things about him, right. There, I godwinned it so that the thread can die.
Excellent move.
Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939. Can't we all just get along?
nocones wrote: If Chick-fil-a is mediocre at best I need to know what fast food counter service restaurants have better food/service so my eyes can be opened to a new level of food. I genuinely want to know since chick is at the top of my list (I like In and Out as much but don't find myself out west as much as down south).
Does Portillo's count?
Fact is, I don't understand people going crazy over almost any fast food. None of it is very good. The three that I love are Culver's, Portillos, and White Castle. I can understand people hating WC--I personally love it--but it is a love it or hate it thing. Culvers I peronally think is just a really good burger joint, but its the quality of it that I like. Nothing to special, just good, easy food done right. Portillo's is just amazing and the only one I go crazy over. But not really fast food.
turboswede wrote: I didn't comment on the death thread for that piece of plastic that passed recently because I had nothing nice to say, I'd think some of you might have been smart enough to do the same here. Obviously not. :/
Seriously?? You're going to try to act moral about respecting someone in death and in the same breath refer to a fellow human as "piece of plastic?" Way to undermine your own point!
Portillos is definitely Fast Food. I would agree they probably are tops. Culvers is also good.
Duke wrote: Calling someone out for bigotry is NOT the same as being a bigot. And being pro-equality is NOT being anti-Christian. And I have stipulated that it's a private company and they can do whatever they want with it. And the Cathys are free to live what they feel is a proper life without any interference from me. I just get cranky when a "proper life" includes telling *other* people how it's acceptable to live.
So you have no problem calling people bigots, but get cranky if other people tell you about an acceptable way to live?
Are you willing to acknowledge the contradiction you have posted?
mad_machine wrote: ignoring politics and religion.. they do make a tasty chicken.. and I still love the billboards with the cows
Agreed. While I don't agree with their views, I do give them credit for standing by their beliefs in spite of the economic consequences. We're talking about a fast food chain that's closed on Sundays - potentially giving up 14% of revenue. The corporate stand on homosexuality should come as no surprise to anyone.
Besides being closed on Sunday, I've always notice that Chick-Fil-A's employees seem to be more cheerful and polite than your average fast food worker (from what I hear, they're better paid), and they tend to keep the place cleaner than the competition as well. They seem to be a place that is run to a standard, not a bottom line, and I'm pretty sure that came from the top down.
http://www.tacotimenw.com/default.aspx
I am going to stay away from the politics but it sucks that there is family that is grieving and people out there are blasting this guy.
Regarding the restaurant, it was clean and the staff is nice but the food is so mediocre and it is always crowded as hell. I don't go especially since I can go to Zaxby's, Bojangles or Popeye's to get chicken all of which are 1000x times better.
The Chik-fil-a chicken never struck me as that great - I like Raising Cane's way better - but their waffle fries are second to none. I love love love their waffle fries.
I was not terribly impressed with the food. Not bad, but not spectacular. They are also pretty low in healthy options (not surprising).
The "friendly" thing got a bit weird also. They wanted to know my name, for a drive through order! That was strange.
Bill Foster: Why am I calling you by your first names? I don't even know you. I still call my boss "Mister", and I've been working for him for seven years, but all of a sudden I walk in here and I'm calling you Rick and Sheila like we're in some kind of AA meeting... I don't want to be your buddy, Rick. I just want some breakfast.
ronholm wrote:Duke wrote: Calling someone out for bigotry is NOT the same as being a bigot. And being pro-equality is NOT being anti-Christian. And I have stipulated that it's a private company and they can do whatever they want with it. And the Cathys are free to live what they feel is a proper life without any interference from me. I just get cranky when a "proper life" includes telling *other* people how it's acceptable to live.So you have no problem calling people bigots, but get cranky if other people tell you about an acceptable way to live? Are you willing to acknowledge the contradiction you have posted?
Nice try, but no contradiction exists:
1) He's welcome to be bigoted against anybody he wants to be. Doesn't mean he's not a bigot.
2) I'm not a hypocrite because: As long as everything involves consenting human adults, I don't care how anybody lives their lives, who they choose to associate with or marry (or not), what deity or deities they choose to worship (or not), when or how they choose to worship that deity or deities (or not), who they have sex with (or not) and how they have it, what they choose to eat, drink, smoke, or rub onto themselves (or not), what they do for a living, etc. etc. etc. I only care how much they try to interfere with other people's freedoms.
In other words, Mr. Cathy (or anyone) can choose to live as strict and pious a life for himself as he wishes and I will go to my proverbial death defending his right to do so. But my support, approval, and tolerance end at the instant he (or anyone) attempts to suppress or legislate against the equal rights of others.
You have the right to do anything you want EXCEPT stopping other people from doing what they want. Get it? If I condemn your attempts at repressing others, it is NOT the same as repressing you. Therefore, as stated above, there is no contradiction.
ronholm wrote:Duke wrote: Calling someone out for bigotry is NOT the same as being a bigot. And being pro-equality is NOT being anti-Christian. And I have stipulated that it's a private company and they can do whatever they want with it. And the Cathys are free to live what they feel is a proper life without any interference from me. I just get cranky when a "proper life" includes telling *other* people how it's acceptable to live.So you have no problem calling people bigots, but get cranky if other people tell you about an acceptable way to live? Are you willing to acknowledge the contradiction you have posted?
Calling out oppression is not the same as oppressing people. I'm not clear on why you think it is. Whether or not bigotry is present in the Cathys or at Chik-fil-a, pointing it out is NOT bigotry in itself. That's an absurd stance to take.
If I point out something being green, am I suddenly the color green?
I like Chick-fil-A. I don't care for their politics. I didn't care for my Grandfather's racism and most of his politics, either.
You can respect a person even if you profoundly disagree with them.
I'll take somebody who has clear principles and sticks to them, even if I disagree, over a hypocrite any day.
Duke wrote: I don't see that it's gone off the rails. I see that a person chose to use his position and wealth to espouse a particular viewpoint. Both are well within his rights, but that does not make his - or anybody's - viewpoint immune to criticism. Most here have admired his dedication even while disapproving of his viewpoint.
This pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say, but in a much simpler form.
bravenrace wrote: It took me a long time, but eventually I learned to not judge people I knew, let alone those that I don't. But from what I can tell, the media was the one that broadcasted the way that chain was run, not the Kathy's. They just ran their business according to their beliefs, and donated their money to causes that they believed in, just like you or me. That's not controversial in my opinion, and nobody's business except theirs. Should we talk about all the people and businesses that donate money to causes that go against Christianity? I don't think so. Just one other thing. Is calling someone that you don't know a bigot ( I know you didn't do that yourself) any better than someone being against gay marriage? I find that in general the people in this world that claim to be the most open minded are way too often the most closed minded.
I realized I wasn't being clear enough in my first few posts. I'm not advocating judgment or uninformed name-calling at the time of a man's death. However, to espouse how it isn't appropriate to discuss or criticize someone's actions after their death seems a bit over the top for me personally.
As for not discussing groups or people who donate money to causes that go against Christianity - I say why not? (other than the patio, of course). Just be civil about it, which I guess is the problem with the internet. Although we disagree, personally I think the two of us are doing a good job at the moment.
Regarding whether or not using the word "bigot" is somehow the same as supporting discrimination - I think Duke & dculberson just said it better than I could.
BTW - Thanks for acknowledging that I haven't actually used those words myself. I agree with you that I didn't know him well enough. Overall, he seems to have made an overall positive impact on the world. Especially when you see his philanthropy, scholarships, etc. Hell, the guy fostered 30 children! That said, it doesn't mean we're not allowed to discuss other parts of his life as if they never happened.
I like pie
And maple pie for our Northern friends.
Here we go
Matt B wrote:Duke wrote: I don't see that it's gone off the rails. I see that a person chose to use his position and wealth to espouse a particular viewpoint. Both are well within his rights, but that does not make his - or anybody's - viewpoint immune to criticism. Most here have admired his dedication even while disapproving of his viewpoint.This pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say, but in a much simpler form.bravenrace wrote: It took me a long time, but eventually I learned to not judge people I knew, let alone those that I don't. But from what I can tell, the media was the one that broadcasted the way that chain was run, not the Kathy's. They just ran their business according to their beliefs, and donated their money to causes that they believed in, just like you or me. That's not controversial in my opinion, and nobody's business except theirs. Should we talk about all the people and businesses that donate money to causes that go against Christianity? I don't think so. Just one other thing. Is calling someone that you don't know a bigot ( I know you didn't do that yourself) any better than someone being against gay marriage? I find that in general the people in this world that claim to be the most open minded are way too often the most closed minded.I realized I wasn't being clear enough in my first few posts. I'm not advocating judgment or uninformed name-calling at the time of a man's death. However, to espouse how it isn't appropriate to discuss or criticize someone's actions after their death seems a bit over the top for me personally. As for not discussing groups or people who donate money to causes that go against Christianity - I say why not? (other than the patio, of course). Just be civil about it, which I guess is the problem with the internet. Although we disagree, personally I think the two of us are doing a good job at the moment. Regarding whether or not using the word "bigot" is somehow the same as supporting discrimination - I think Duke & dculberson just said it better than I could. BTW - Thanks for acknowledging that I haven't actually used those words myself. I agree with you that I didn't know him well enough. Overall, he seems to have made an overall positive impact on the world. Especially when you see his philanthropy, scholarships, etc. Hell, the guy fostered 30 children! That said, it doesn't mean we're not allowed to discuss other parts of his life as if they never happened.
I haven't actually been following this thread since I last posted, but I have done some research, and one thing I've found is that I can't find anywhere where Truett Kathy ever said anything about hating anyone. He supported the idea of traditional marriage, and donated money to causes that support traditional marriage. That's not the same as hate. If he gave money to gay hate groups, then that's a little different, but I can't find where he did.
I also support traditional marriage. I don't hate gays. I just feel that the decline of the traditional marriage and family morals is not going to be good for our society as time goes on. It hasn't been so far, so I don't know why that would change. That's my opinion, but I don't hate anyone because of it. I can't find where he did either. Because of that, I can't find any reason to call him a bigot either.
And one clarification - When I mentioned talking about causes against Christians, what I should have said was negative or condemning talk about them. I think people are allowed to have their own beliefs. That's part of living in a free society.
dculberson wrote:ronholm wrote:Calling out oppression is not the same as oppressing people. I'm not clear on why you think it is. Whether or not bigotry is present in the Cathys or at Chik-fil-a, pointing it out is NOT bigotry in itself. That's an absurd stance to take. If I point out something being green, am I suddenly the color green?Duke wrote: Calling someone out for bigotry is NOT the same as being a bigot. And being pro-equality is NOT being anti-Christian. And I have stipulated that it's a private company and they can do whatever they want with it. And the Cathys are free to live what they feel is a proper life without any interference from me. I just get cranky when a "proper life" includes telling *other* people how it's acceptable to live.So you have no problem calling people bigots, but get cranky if other people tell you about an acceptable way to live? Are you willing to acknowledge the contradiction you have posted?
A false sense of oppression is very often the most effective tool of the most oppressive.
Look at all so called"open minds" spewing hate about this man who likely didn't have a hateful bone in is body. This all because he supported causes which promote a family unit that statistically is much more healthy and stable than alternatives. Just because you can and do have the right to deviate from this doesn't make this man a bigot. To scream he is a bigot because you not only think that everyone has the right to do all kinds of weird things (which I support BTW) but that he should be required to accept every whim of culture as wholly 'equal' and praise it as such, lest you treat him as an outcast from society, is to be by definition, oppressive.
bravenrace wrote: I can't find anywhere where Truett Kathy ever said anything about hating anyone. He supported the idea of traditional marriage, and donated money to causes that support traditional marriage. That's not the same as hate. If he gave money to gay hate groups, then that's a little different, but I can't find where he did.
...except that his idea of "supporting traditional marriage" involves suppressing the equal rights of others to also be married.
bravenrace wrote: I also support traditional marriage. I don't hate gays. I just feel that the decline of the traditional marriage and family morals is not going to be good for our society as time goes on.
And - apparently - like Mr. Cathy, you don't feel it is possible for two people of the same gender to have family morals. Yet, equally apparently, they feel a strong need to make that kind of lifelong commitment to each other. So much so that they are struggling, state by state, to achieve this equality. You say that the decline of family values is an issue in modern society, and I don't disagree with that. So why would you categorically deny a group of people who want to promote family morals? Who actively want to make a lasting commitment? It's really a rhetorical question and you are not obligated to answer - this is not exactly the thread to discuss same-sex marriages.
bravenrace wrote: And one clarification - When I mentioned talking about causes against Christians, what I should have said was negative or condemning talk about them.
Why should any group be immune? Keep your nose out of other people's business, and they will keep their nose out of yours. Funny how that works. And if they don't keep their nose out of your business, if you haven't bothered them, you can claim the high ground when you tell them to suck it.
ronholm wrote:dculberson wrote:A false sense of oppression is very often the most effective tool of the most oppressive. Look at all so called"open minds" spewing hate about this man who likely didn't have a hateful bone in is body. This all because he supported causes which promote a family unit that statistically is much more healthy and stable than alternatives. Just because you can and do have the right to deviate from this doesn't make this man a bigot. To scream he is a bigot because you not only think that everyone has the right to do all kinds of weird things (which I support BTW) but that he should be required to accept every whim of culture as wholly 'equal' and praise it as such, lest you treat him as an outcast from society, is to be by definition, oppressive.ronholm wrote:Calling out oppression is not the same as oppressing people. I'm not clear on why you think it is. Whether or not bigotry is present in the Cathys or at Chik-fil-a, pointing it out is NOT bigotry in itself. That's an absurd stance to take. If I point out something being green, am I suddenly the color green?Duke wrote: Calling someone out for bigotry is NOT the same as being a bigot. And being pro-equality is NOT being anti-Christian. And I have stipulated that it's a private company and they can do whatever they want with it. And the Cathys are free to live what they feel is a proper life without any interference from me. I just get cranky when a "proper life" includes telling *other* people how it's acceptable to live.So you have no problem calling people bigots, but get cranky if other people tell you about an acceptable way to live? Are you willing to acknowledge the contradiction you have posted?
I see no screaming, especially not from me.
Yet again you equate the expectation to be treated as human to oppressing other people. It's bizarre. If I am "X," and you don't agree with "X," no problem. But if you expect to remove rights from "X" due to your beliefs, problem. And pointing out that it is a problem is not bigotry or oppression in itself.
To put it simply: by crying to be free, I am not imprisoning you.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:SVreX wrote: When Truett Cathy makes a business decision to sacrifice 1 weekend day of business every week (which costs over $700 million every year I n lost revenues), he's a bigot.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-l-windmeyer/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a_b_2564379.html Here is a well written article by an LGBT advocate in support of Mr. Cathy.
Wow. That's really good. My sentiments exactly.
I hope some other folks here read that.
Thank you for sharing it.
Portillo's is great...for charging a ton for what is regular dinner food. When I pay $8.00+ for two dogs, fries and a drink, something is wrong. Its good food, no doubt, but, damn, they are sure proud of it.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: http://www.tacotimenw.com/default.aspx
Nobody knows what you are talking about 
I haven't lived in the PNW for 13 years but my folks still do. Everytime I go visit them, I HAVE to go to TacoTime.
You'll need to log in to post.
