January 25, 2023
Commentary
Coffee Vs. Chicken: Nation Divides Along Culinary Lines
- by July 31, 2012
"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.” -- Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy, speaking to the Baptist Press.
"A growing number of the restaurant's supporters -- more than 325,000 so far -- are pledging to take part in Wednesday's Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. August 1, 2012, launched by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on his radio show. -- Baptist Press
It was only four years ago to the day -- August 1, 2012 -- that the Great Culture Wars started. Fast-food companies inflamed the passions and imaginations of Americans the way no political party at the time could, bringing far-worse consequences for the country than anyone could have predicted.
Indeed, the shopworn distinctions between Republicans and Democrats faded away as the country quickly split into new, extreme, geographic and fast-food-based factions, known as the Chick-Fil-Atarians vs. The Starbuckaroonians.
advertisement
advertisement
The Filatarians, as they came to be known, amassed all over the Southeast, with the rallying cry of “Batter up!” floating the idea that the right kind of flour coating on fried chicken could “fry away the gay” and keep heteros with their original spouses. This so infuriated the Starbuckaroonians that they quickly spread their response, “Make foam, not hate speech,” through their respective Tumblr accounts, and the chaotic period known as the Great Three-Year Strife began.
Mobilizing quickly, arriving in Acuras, Priuses and on novelty bicycles, the ‘Buckeroonians set up vast WiFi laden camps from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. With constant Josh Groban music piped into their sweeping outdoor spaces, followers set up a battery of tall, grande, or venti-sized tents. There they could escape to read their e-books, meditate, or listen to Maya Angelous tapes; at 4 p.m. each day, members collectively prepared nonfat no-whip Mochaccinos to go along with the miniature tarts and dried, peeled fruit snacks that quickly lost their appeal.
Meanwhile, the Filatarians were on the move in caravans of Harleys and late-model Ford and Chevy pickups. Some even resorted to riding giant mechanized recliners equipped with flat-screen TVs. While on the move, members tended to collect tattoos, novelty T-shirts, and stoneware from the Paula Deen collection, which they liked to shoot up with their rifles.
Each camp had a team dedicated to denouncing the other, with the Filatarians condemning their enemies as “ pretentious, bicoastal, overcaffeinated BlacBberry-carrying Quinoa eaters!”
The Starbuckaroonian responded with “It’s KEEN-WAH, idiot! But what can you expect from Cro-Magnons who like to ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ and tell others who they can and can’t marry?&rdquo
Meanwhile breakaway groups started threatening the power structures of the two dominant groups: Domino’s militia men arrived, and some of the refugees on both sides snuck in to huddle around their warming cases; the faction known as the Pinkberry people left for a new, light and healthy enclave in the East, while an association of Chipotle voters started its own collective in the Southwest, citing needs for organic choices and hot sauce.
Quoting scripture about the “flames of hell,” the self-identified Outback Steakhousewives said they missed “dining out” and didn’t want to live in camps any more.
At the same time, a human rights commission dubbed The Samsonites traveled between camps, checking on conditions.
Eventually the various campgrounds were flooded, frozen, or declared uninhabitable. UN Troops were called in. By then, however, with the European economies going down in flames, and half the U.S. population living in tent cities, all of the U.N. members had fallen behind in their dues. The global organization had to be reconstituted in favor of the new corporate nation states who could pay the bills, like the federation of Amazon/GE and the Republic of Apple, which attempted to revoke the membership of the Microsoft NGOs. The Exxon/Mobil Facebook nation meanwhile had lost its place on the Security Council because of machinations by Goldman-Sachs/Coca-Cola.
Eventually, the set of colonies known as the Berkshire-Hathaway Isles became the principal ruling body and built federal housing, hospitals, and schools, which slowly restored order to a country riven by opposing corporate ideologies and religion-based companies.
Moral of the story: What a waste all of this is. But if it teaches Dan Cathy a new bottom line -- the company stated on its Facebook page that in the future, “our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena” -- that’s a tiny victory for tolerance.
14 comments about "Coffee Vs. Chicken: Nation Divides Along Culinary Lines ".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
What would Don do? He is a fair minded guy, though he seems to be ambivalent towards this sort of outcry. Just to bring it back to Mad Men!
I like Chick-fil-A and I really don't care what the companies views are. I knew, like In-n-Out, that it is a Christian run business. So I have a feeling I won't agree with many of their views. But I like the food at both, and neither play a role in policy-making. So why do I care if anybody makes statements like this?
I think the silly part of all this is that people actually waste electrons discussing it. Especially people who are self-proclaimed "tolerant". Tolerant of what? Other views? Clearly not.
I have no problems with being intolerant of intolerance. But not intolerance on people's religious views, which this essentially represents. I'm intolerant of those who tell me how I must act and behave, even if I happen to agree with their point of view.
Dan Cathy can say what he wants, it's a free country. I don't have to agree with him, I just have to like his company's food. He wasn't telling me how to behave or how to think. But the people telling me that if I agree with them then I should boycott Chick-fil-A, well....I'm sorry I'll take a pass.
At a time when we need jobs, watching politicians put jobs at risk by denying Chick-fil-A building permits or denying them the right to open stores is, well, cutting off your nose to spite your face. Sure, I don't like the company's opinion, but I don't see the company passing legislation, either. I see them passing me a juicy, tasty sandwich.
I'll take that, and leave the words and other nonsense to the people who have so little else to do with their time than worry about nonsense like this and show their own intolerance of religious views.
Barbara - this is a scream, thanks for compiling the faux blows by faux blows amongst the actual and usual madness...
Thom Kennon | @tkennon | bigevidence.blogspot.com
I agree that we can't start denying permits because of a company owner's religious views.
But this movement could go Occupy one better-- will be interesting to see what happens today, with "Appreciation Day" taking place on the one one hand, and a Gay "kiss-in" organized at the same time. Seems to have inflamed passions the way neither candidate can!
Two corrections: Starbuckaroonians would not be caught dead with a BlackBerry in their hands OR listening to Josh Groban. Try "iPhones" and "Bon Iver" and you'll be spot on.
For the record, I am a fan of both iPhones &
Bon Iver but not immune to poking a little fun at myself!
Your depiction of people who believe in the Bible as being backwards, hateful, Cro-Magnons who are intolerant is so offensive that I don’t even know where to begin. This post is a perfect example of the highest form of intolerance. True, Bible believing, Christians believe in the principles documented in the Bible by our Creator and would never hate someone for engaging in what they believe to be a sin because they themselves are also sinners. Just because someone states their beliefs doesn't mean that they are hateful or intolerant. The fact that people are not allowed to have their own opininions anymore unless they agree with the PR machine of the left should be more conerning to you as a "journalist" then a restaurant owner stating an opinion that is contrary to yours. The term intolerance has been hyjacked as a weapon for use in any situation where a dissenting opinion is voiced. Shame on you for using an MediaPost to further your political agenda; unless of course this is the political agenda of MediaPost as a whole as well.
This post is simply a hateful, non-tolerant rant against anyone who has different beliefs then the author does.
Thomas Lynch-- I took pains to poke equal fun at both sides, and tried to point out the cliches and stereotypes inherent in either one. This has nothing to do with an "agenda" and I certainly do not speak for Mediapost as a whole.
I still don't see why 'gay marriage' is an issue. The government didn't get involved in marriage until someone decided it was needed to prevent miscegenation.
Once that began, suddenly we needed 'licenses' to be married. Then people got to decide who it was ok to get married to, etc.
Point is, this is NOT a political debate. Take the right to approve marriage away from politicians, and the problem (such as it is) becomes a personal issue, just as it was prior to government licensing.
The problem, as I see it, is not whether anyone supports gay marriage. It's whether they support further government intrusion into our personal lives. I say take a step back, and let's remove government from these aspects of our lives. We'll all be much, much happier.
Let the nonsense protestors do what they will. Some people, regardless of what side of the coin they are on, are just never happy. I'm certain even when gay marriage is finally in all 50 states, these people will find some other thing to complain about.
Barbara, for what it's worth...while I agree you tried to poke fun at both sides, there's a pretty evident slight to one side versus the other. I agree with your general statement, but it was glaringly obvious to me. Thomas has a point.
But if it teaches Dan Cathy a new bottom line -- ... that’s a tiny victory for tolerance.
Barbara, that pretty much sums up your view/agenda, which to me says There is no need for tolerance of people's opinions anymore simply just a demand for tolerance of one particular viewpoint; with any dissention from that one viewpoint being deemed as hateful or intolerant and therefore persecuted against.
Adopting and embracing that type of ideology is a very dangerous road to travel down; history has proven that.
Anyone using the term intolerant regarding Mr. Cathy's statement is a damned idiot or cannot read. We support biblical marriage is a statement of one's own belief. If it doesn't gel with YOUR belief, tough crap ! Your belief is JUST that. I don't give a rat's behind what anyone does in their bedroom. But when you push it in my face and tell me I should approve and live my life and run my business accordingly, expect to only leave with PART of your face. It seems to be all half-wits and illiterates that want to use "intolerance" in this situation. Here's the deal; Everyone doesn't have to feel like you feel. Mr Cathy doesn't....and I SURE don't. So keep it to yourself and stay out of my way with your loud-mouthed ideas.
Thank you Barbara; you brightened my day.
Rick and Thomas are right. I saw it too, Barabara. It was unequal "fun-poking."
I would say this is worth reading: from a gay chick Fil a employee, who at first denounced the boycott, and then changed her own view.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/02/a-gay-chick-fil-a-employee-speaks-out.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet