Chick-fil-A ‘Voluntarily’ Nixes Muppet Toys

Glad that The Jim Henson Company decided to put values before the almighty dollar.

One would think such an avowedly Christian company would be familiar with Proverbs 6:16-19, but apparently not.

How about Exodus 20:16? 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=NIV

Apparently “Thou shalt not bear false witness” has been replaced in the 10 Commandments by “Thou shalt eat mor chiken, unless you are gay”.

I hope there is a lawsuit by the Jim Henson company for implying it was a defective toy.

That was pretty stupid.

It’s a juvenile case of “He didn’t break up with me, I broke up with him!”  Grow up Chik-fil-A… and while you’re at it, learn how to spell.

Of course they have a right to do what they did. But making up a bogus story to explain the missing Muppets just demonstrates that they are hypocrites. If they are confident in their views, why lie?

It would have been cool if Henson continued supplying the Muppets for a while, and then announced officially that Bert and Ernie are a gay couple (as many suspect, anyway).

You see, whoever tells the most lies for Jebus gets a set of steak knives when they get to Heaven. Really good knives; the kind you see on infomercials. 

Ah, the “I have gay friends” defense. Sorry, having gay friends doesn’t make you not a homophobe, just as having black friends doesn’t necessarily make you not a racist.

do I hear the sound of Chick-fil-a digging a deeper grave? Time to hire better PR people. 

  Hi there, I just wanted to share with you that as a former employee, Chick fil a does not
hate people who are gay, the company simply does not promote sexual
orientation of any kind, it sells chicken sandwiches.

Chick fil a respects both its employees and its customers.  I worked for
them for 6 years, between two different stores and many different store
operators, and none of them, nor the home office, ever made any
expression of hate towards anyone based on sexual orientation.

While I can’t speak for every person working for the company on an
individual basis, I can say that the company has no interest in any kind
of hate towards anyone at all. They do have a right as individuals and
American citizens, to believe what they like for themselves and not be
persecuted for it.

However, my question remains as to what actually happened with the
“recalling” of the puppets, the dealings with GLAD, etc, vs. what it
appears. In time, this will be made clear. In the past, in my personal
dealings with Chick fil a, tho, they have never been the kind of company
to lie about things like this, and have been very professional and
respectful toward their customers.

What I have heard is two different stories from news reports. One is that Chick fil has pulled the toys, the other is that they HAD to pull the toys because of GLAD.

I’m sure you’re aware that media and the public in general often do not
care enough to dig deep enough for truth to discover  in certainty
different facts about various situations before information is spread, but rather they often rush to conclusions
or judgments because of their own personal bias on the situation. And while I’m not
saying this is certainly the case, I think a rational course of action would be to
withhold judgement before discovering ALL the facts.  The reason I
say this, is based on my personal experience with the company in years
past and what I experience now as a customer buying sandwiches from
them.

I think everyone knows the restaurant itself doesn’t discriminate against gay people. But the owners do. So eating there inevitably gives fuel to bigotry and that’s what the protests are about.

I believe there is an award being handed out on YouTube for the most heinous and blatant breath of the ninth commandment by a Christian organization.

Chick-fil-a, here is your nomination: Remember, if you ever find yourself ashamed to be a bigot, you don’t need to reconsider your position; just start lying for Jesus instead — it’s what he’d want you to do.

I agree they have a right to express their opinion despite it being unpopular with many people and I’m very glad they did instead of hiding it. This way the people who disagree with their opinion can make an informed choice as to whether or not they want to spend their money at a business where some of those profits will be spent on promoting discrimination against their fellow citizens.

It’s a win/win for everybody involved!

I don’t get it. Why do they have to lie? These people act like moral paragons, and they can’t even shoot straight with something this petty? What a crock of hair-covered poop.

How many times does this have to be repeated?

Nobody gives two shits that they deeply believe something. What we care about is that they’re using their huge profits to force other people to live by their deep beliefs.

Please stop trying to paint people who believe the way you do as a victim. We don’t care that they believe what they do, only that they’re trying to force everyone else to live that way as well. If Chic-fil-A “respected our decisions,” they wouldn’t be pouring money into politics to deny us rights. 

Bert and Ernie are a gay couple

I keep hearing this and it doesn’t make any sense because they’re obviously two brothers who live together, at least that’s what they were when I was kid back in the ’70s & ’80s.  I’d hate to see them change all that history now just to be “edgy and modern”.

If they’re going to introduce a gay couple on Sesame Street let them create someone new, unless they already have – I haven’t watched “The Street” in years, and leave good old Bert and Ernie out of it.

If they use money from the business to fund hate groups then CFA is NOT just selling chicken sandwiches.  They are using profit they make from me to support a cause I abhor.  Therefore, I will never give them another dime of my money.  It’s just THAT simple!

Just shows that religions are utterly ridiculous… Imaginary friends for adults. Insane!

I’m so glad that they still would sell their crappy sandwiches to gay people.   No one is saying that there is a check mark on the job-application that says “Do you hate gay people?”  I know that the person behind the counter is most likely not a raging homophobe.  However, the CEO and the company are raging homophobes.  They pay people to make sure that gay people do not have the same rights as you do.  Why should I give my money to a company, who will in turn give it to a cause that I can not support. 

They have every right to believe and do what they want.  Just like I have every right to say that their actions are bigoted.   I just like have every right not to patronize their restaurants and just like I have every right to convince people to do the same. 

So do you go to you gay friends and say that they are destroying America?  Do you go to your gay friends and say that if the person they love is in the hospital, they have no right to visit them or make medical decisions for them?  Do you tell you gay friends that they should never be allowed to adopt a child?   That is what Chick-fil-a is doing.  So in the end, you really don’t respect your gay friends.  

 Technically, though, it’s not a lie if they believe what they is true. They can be mistaken in their belief, but it’s not a lie per-se.

So other than you just don’t believe them, what evidence do you have that they are lying?

 “You have the right to promote your cause, but they don’t.”

Let’s see. One corrects an injustice, the other wants to keep in statu quo. Do you also feel your rights to own slaves have been infringed on?

Nope. Find me a source somewhere that says they’re brothers. As someone stated after me, during the controversy over whether or not B&E were gay, Sesame Street released a statement saying they were just best friends. If they were brothers, wouldn’t they have said so then?

 Wow! I haven’t heard the “I’m not anti-Semitic, I have Jewish friends” defense since I left the Old Country(tm) 33 years ago.

Because checking with the Consumer Product Safety Commission is an excellent form of proof. If there was a true hazard, it would have been reported and money or compensation would be offered for the faulty product. In this case the wording has been changed to a ‘withdraw’ instead of a ‘recall’ and no such report has been filed. 

I have no problem with opinion, on the streets of NYC it is not uncommon to pass by a ‘peaceful’ demonstration from groups spouting racial epitaphs and slurs. Where I draw the line is when option is enforced at an ACTUAL expense of another. You can complain all you want about marriage equality, but any action on your part to deny consenting adults the right to it, is an ACTUAL expense. I’d rather be intolerant of this intolerance then allow this injustice to continue.

 Of course you must first show that it is a right for same sex couples to marry each other which is being taken away. Second, you must show that this will not impact or effect others. So before you can claim that those that oppose same sex marriage are taking away rights that don’t effect them, you must meet you burden of proof.  The state has always had and continues to have a legitimate interest in regulating marriage and has done so between man and a woman for secular reasons that are not based upon allowing all who love each other the right to marry each other.  I understand that you do not agree and that this is your right.  Unlike those on the other side of this debate however, I will not call you nor do I think you are a bigot for holding your position.

 Just trying to hold you guys to the standard you profess to follow.  But good job at avoiding the question.

You should start by holding your fellow christians to a higher standard of honesty.
Your question is irrelevant, I don´t care if they are lying or not.

 No, in my first sentence I was talking about christians in general. In the second I was talking about this case.

Could you please prove that marriage equality is unjust, without invoking religion? Thx

“Of course you must first show that it is a right for same sex couples to marry each other which is being taken away.”

This is a blatant attempt to hide behind bad law. We both know DOMA nullified any rights which could have been petitioned for, meaning, one can’t lose a right that was never afforded. This is why I consider DOMA unconstitutional, an option gaining ground as even Attorney General Martha Coakley has recently asked the Supreme Court to sink DOMA.

“Second, you must show that this will not impact or effect others.”

So what was the evidence provided which showed slaves would “not impact or effect others” if freed?

“The state has always had and continues to have a legitimate interest in regulating marriage and has done so between man and a woman for secular reasons that are not based upon allowing all who love each other the right to marry each other”

Sorry, this does not fly. There are no shortage of Christians who claim this country was founded on Christian principles, the idea that marriage is between a man & woman one of those principals made law in the form of DOMA. Secular reasons for regulating marriage end with the age of consent, maintaining interest beyond this point reflects nonsecular interests. One only needs to recall how it was once against the law to teach slaves to read and write to know laws can be founded on bias and bigotry.

 That is really not the question.  Those that want to change this definition argue that they should be able
to marry who they love, however that has never been the reason states
regulate marriage in the first place. The relevant question is -does the state have legitimate interest in regulating marriage to being between a man and a woman and not just between a man and a woman but certain classes of men and women (for example, you cannot marry someone who is already married, nor could you marry your cousin). If they do then it is not an undue restriction on freedom.  I would argue that the state does have a legitimate interest.  The institution of marriage has never been based upon the state allowing people who love each other to marry. It has always been for the protection of children due to procreation. It is the societal institution that connects biological parents to their children and for the protection of these children. Look at the family law in this country and you will see that is is based almost exclusively on what is in the best interest of the children. Redefining marriage to be based exclusively on love between adults takes the meaning of this institution away from children and based entirely upon the desires of adults. It is the burden of those that what to make this change to show that state’s interest is not valid.

 My point is that you must first show that the right for same sex couples to get married is a right in the constitution that is being infringed upon by the state regulations. 

Why keep bringing up slavery to dodge the question. Since those that support same sex marriage want to void state regulations on marriage, once the state shows that it has a reason for the regulation, it is their burden to show that it will do no harm to remove it. 

The secular reasons that the state regulates marriage goes beyond the age of consent.  One interest is for the protection of children and connection with their biological parents, thus regulating procreation and the potential for procreation.  That is why you cannot marry your cousin, you cannot marry someone who is already married, you cannot marry multiple partners at the same time.  All legitimate state interests that have nothing to do with religion.

 Speaking of avoiding….

Did you find evidence supporting the claim these toys pose a safety issue yet?

  It is the burden of those that are saying they are lying  to show that what they have said is a lie.  I have simply asked for the evidence that this is a lie.  To this point none has been provided.  You maybe correct that they are, but to this point is is an accusation without proof.

like how you tried to spell chick fil a?  nice.

 If pigs can marry frogs, then we’re on a slippery slope to same-sex marriage.

 Jim henson company publicly villianized a business partner, that’s bad business for Chik-fil-a, no brainer there that they had no choice but to drop the toys

They didn’t have to lie about it, though.

Since I find nothing which lends creditability to the “safety” claim, the original “accusation without proof” came from Chick-fil-A.

 Where is the lie? I’m trying to find it, but I can’t. They plainly state that the recall is voluntary due to a “possible issue” and even advised that “there have not been any cases in which a child has actually been injured.”

You know, you’d avoid so much drama if you’d actually read the OP.

Yes, they’re definitely not brothers. Bert does have a twin brother, Bart, and a nephew named Brad. Here’s one of my favorite skits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE5RUNGfL_w

I don’t see a problem here. People who support marriage equality will stop patronizing Chick-fil-A, while those in opposition will continue to lend their support. However, I highly doubt the company will gain legions of new followers. Anyone who’s anti-gay and likes chicken probably already eats there.

BTW, the issue is not that “one man likes the proper meaning of marriage.” It’s that Chick-fil-A has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations. Plenty of people disagree that his definition of marriage is the “proper” one, and do not care to eat at a restaurant that seeks to deny their fellow citizens equal rights.

 Why would the Jim Henson Workshop be issuing statements about Bert and Ernie? Sesame Street is produced by the Children’s Television Workshop, not Henson.  The Muppets are produced by Henson, but it’s always been an edgier, more adult program, so it’s going to deal with sex and romance in different ways than a program for two-year olds. Standards for one program have nothing to do with the other.

At any rate, Bert & Ernie are obviously a riff on the Neal Simon play, film, (and later, the spin-off television series),  The Odd Couple.  I guess that was a lot more obvious when they were created than it is now.

People are not hateful, bigoted or homophobic who are against gay marriage. Most Christians would support rights for a gay person but they don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed.

“I support your rights…just not this one.”

What about civil unions? I think Chick-fil-a would be more accomodating or encouraging to civil unions. Many people who don’t support gay marriage are fine with civil unions. It’s not really about the rights but rather what people call it.

In other words, “We want this special title for us; you can’t have it.” Do you remember how that whole “separate but equal” thing worked out in the past?

This is America so you are free to shut the fuck up and not eat there.

We are also free not to shut the fuck up and not eat there.

 “I’m sure there are plenty of athiests are not encouraging of gay marriage as well.”

And the reason for that would be…? Because i don’t see how gay marriage would afect me in particular, i dont plan on marrying a dude anyway so i don’t see a valid reason for me to oppose a legal contarct called “marriage” between two consenting adults. On the fundie side however they have the “bible said so” excuse…

The ones with the stag horn handles?!

’cause I’m totally gonna Lie for Jeebus, if that’s true.

 Loving V. Virginia established marriage as a constitutional and human right.

Also, those who are against same-sex marriage are the ones claiming there’s some sort of effect, so the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how same-sex marriage would negatively effect them. So far, I’ve only ever heard the exact same arguments that were used against interracial marriage.

Now, stop acting like we haven’t explained this shit to you before, and show us your evidence that it actually harms anyone.

 It doesn’t, and he knows that. All of this has been explained to him in the past, but he just ignores that his questions have already been answered and keeps asking them.

Once the state shows that it has a reasonable basis for the regulation and a connection between the regulation and the harm to be prevented.  It is then up to the party wanting to invalidate the regulation to show that the harm sought to be prevented will not occur and thus there is no need for the regulation.  So the burden is on the party supporting same sex marriage to show that it will do no harm, not the other way around.  In Loving, the court found that indeed the state had the right to regulate marriage but could not do so based upon racial grounds in violation of the 14th amendment.

With this in mind, now show me the evidence that the state does not have the right to regulate marriage to exclude same sex couples and show me the evidence that changing the basis for marriage from a means to protect children and connect them to their parents  and thus regulate procreation to one based exclusively on the desires of adults. We can already see where this is heading.  The family in the show sister wives have now filed a lawsuit to end the bigamy laws in Utah on the basis that they have the right to marry whoever they want and the state cannot tell them how many at a time.  In Europe where same sex marriage has been around for a while, marriage is almost non existent. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty of those that oppose same sex marriage will be and is already under attack. More children grow up fatherless, which is already a tremendous problem. And there is a lowering of birth rates, which is already happening in Europe.

I understand you will not agree with these problems and we can debate that.

False equivalence.  Please provide citations linking marriage equality with decreases of matrimony, children without fathers, and lowered birth rates.

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same sex marriages in 2001. Based on your assertions, there should be a god sized pothole in it’s place as a result of 11 years of acceptance.  I just checked google maps, IT IS STILL THERE. Not only is the country still on the map, based on the CIA World Factbook, they have MUCH less unemployment, have a 30% less class divide, have 24% less mortality rates amongst children, healthcare is 50% cheaper, life expectancy is 1.31% longer, and be 66.67% less likely to contract AIDS/HIV. It sounds HORRIBLE. Let’s not be like the Netherlands.   

Now, I know the lines are busy, people, but keep dialing in if you want a truly exceptional knife to slice up your friends in their sleep. 

It’s not the cheaper Manticore horn.

 Seriously?  You’re going to rib me about a typo?  I spelled it the way the cows do. 😉

And this is news why?   Besides who wants to do business with someone with no morals?