ONTD Political

Chick-Fil-A's Brand Approval Rating Plummets After Anti-Gay Controversy

11:44 am - 07/31/2012
Chick-fil-A's anti-gay marriage stance has gotten some high-profile support by way of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and other conservative lawmakers. But among their longtime customers, it's a much different story.

Polling organization YouGov found that the Atlanta-based chain's brand approval ratings have plummeted in the wake of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's controversial remarks earlier this month. YouGov also reports that the company's overall consumer brand health among fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since mid-August 2010 in the wake of the media firestorm.

Just before Cathy's interview was published, Chick-fil-A's Index score was 65, well above the Top National Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Sector average score of 46. Just four days later, however, Chick-fil-A's score had fallen to 47, while last week, the chain had a score of 39, compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43.



Among the other brands ranked in the Top National QSR sector are Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, Burger King and McDonald's, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) noted.

Among those not surprised by the plunge was Aaron McQuade, Director of News and Field Media at GLAAD, who called the results "reflective of an America that values and respects its LGBT neighbors and rejects rhetoric like Dan Cathy's that seeks to demean and dehumanize the LGBT community."

"The business world has seen what happens when an organization supports the LGBT community -- which is that the LGBT community and its allies will support it," McQuade noted in a statement. "Now we have empirical proof of what happens when a company rejects the LGBT community. The LGBT community and its allies will reject it."

Although Chick-fil-A's financial contributions to anti-gay organizations like Exodus International and the Family Research Council have been well documented over the years, Cathy's somewhat glib confirmation of the reports ("Well, guilty as charged") in a July 16 Baptist Press interview has since sent both the media and a number of LGBT advocacy groups into overdrive.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in that interview. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Since then, at least seven petitions have been launched on Change.org, a social activism site, demanding that universities across the country remove existing Chick-fil-A restaurants or prevent new ones from opening.

Mayors in Boston and San Francisco have also weighed in, telling the restaurant chain that they're not welcome in their cities, and the Jim Henson company, which had provided toys for Chick-fil-A kids' meals, announced that it would end its relationship with the company.


Source also has a video and a list of queer-friendly companies.

Tangentially: I am very pleased by the new trend to follow up reports of problematic companies/foods with positive alternatives. I hope it keeps up.
nynaeve_sedai 10th-Aug-2012 04:57 pm (UTC)
It's not a rejection of the OT, but instead, Christians believe the Jesus fulfilled the law, negating the ceremonial laws (it's a covenantal thing). In fact, if you read through the entire NT, you'll find that this is the very issue that Paul addresses in his epistles. They had a group following them insisting that Gentile converts had to adhere to the ceremonial law (such as circumcision). However, the ceremonial law existed in order to point to Jesus (if you're trying to explain the Bible from within the text which is, of course, how one should interpret a book). Additionally, the entire book of Romans, deals with the fact that the law existed to prove that humans were incapable of perfection and therefore were in need of atonement. The sacrifices previously made were insufficient to satisfy the debt humanity owed to God.

The website you link doesn't represent the arguments accurately. Again, it's not a rejection or cherry-picking. (I'd be happy to list resources for you to follow up with if you have a genuine interest - my husband is getting his ThD in this subject and also reads the Biblical Hebrew and Greek, and spends quite a few hours a week studying commentaries and has sat through classes on textual criticism.)

I have no problem with people saying they think the Bible is bunk and they reject it and calling me stupid for bothering with it. :: shrugs :: I at least find that more intellectually honest than straw man arguments.
This page was loaded May 26th 2013, 9:20 am GMT.