Chick-fil-A’s Latest Fail: Fake Facebook Supporters? July 25, 2012

Chick-fil-A’s Latest Fail: Fake Facebook Supporters?

By Camille Beredjick
July 25, 2012

How low can Chick-fil-A go? Low enough to create a fake Facebook profile in a sad attempt to bolster its reputation online, apparently. (Click image to enlarge.)

As Chick-fil-A struggles to stay afloat in the aftermath of its CEO Dan Cathy denouncing marriage equality and the Jim Henson Co. cutting ties to the company, Gizmodo got word of another utterly disastrous attempt by the restaurant to keep any credibility.

In this exchange on Chick-fil-A’s Facebook page about the restaurant “voluntarily withdrawing” Muppet toys from its kids meals, a cute redhead named Abby Farle sticks up for the Christian chicken chain and directs other commenters to John 3:16.

Then, another poster does a little digging on who exactly she is and retorts:

Abby joined facebook 8 hours ago. Nice try Chick-fil-a PR guy. 2/10 is the best I can do.

Minutes later, the same commenter finds a stock photo of a “redhead teenager isolated on white” that matches the face of the girl leaving the pro-Chick-fil-A posts.

Chick-fil-A claims they had nothing to do with it, according to Forbes, but the profile has since been taken down.

Busted indeed. Whether or not Chick-fil-A’s at fault here, talk about some horrible PR.

Previous Post
A Touching Letter to the Boy Scouts of America
Next Post
If Chick-fil-A Wants to Act Biblically, Then At Least Go All the Way
"I suppose in the sense that both Lincoln and Trump were villified in the "mainstream ..."
Richard Grabman
Lou Dobbs: Trump Faced a “Venomous ..."
"Often paired with "I didn't do anything illegal anyway, I just walked in an open ..."
Makoto
Lou Dobbs: Trump Faced a “Venomous ..."
"One more part of his legacy will endure.. the courts. Even though it's more because ..."
Makoto
Lou Dobbs: Trump Faced a “Venomous ..."
"Who is still in the closet."
Jim
Michael Brown: Just Because Christians Rioted ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • BCP

    These Chick-fil-a postings are getting a little redundant. I’ve never been a regular customer because of their “values” but I don’t care THIS much about the stupid shit they do.

  • Katharine Klevinskas

    I don’t think I ever even heard of them before all this.

  • Well others do. 🙂

  • pauleky

    Many people do, BCP. You could, you know, SKIP these posts. 🙂

  • stu

    Wait a second- a reader doesn’t care? And it’s bcp! How tragic. Seriously, it’s not all about you & if you don’t like these articles then don’t read them. Easy.

  • Really, what drives the “fundamentalist apathists” to comment on pages covering topics that they claim to not care about? If you don’t care, then what is the purpose of commenting, thus adding to the number of people discussing said topic, thereby adding to the appearance that said topic is one that people care about? Don’t care? Great. Spend your time somewhere where you do care, then. It’s a far better use of your time, I guarantee.

  • Bet they’re using a service like 
    http://www.reputation.com/

  • Muggin15

    I’m all for freedom of speech and whatever else, hate on if you want I guess. That being said, if the CEO were donating his personal money to anti-gay causes that would be one thing, but the corporation itself donates money to these causes, which is why I will never spend a dime there. I won’t have a cent out of my money going to any type of cause that promotes bigotry. 

  • Muggin15

     You must not watch football, their stupid commercials are on all the time during football games.

  • No.  I’m an atheist.

  • The Lord Vishnu

    Who gives a f­ucking sh­it? Seriously. 

    Plus, why are people so sure that Chick-fil-A had anything to do with it? Do you know how often individual people create fake Facebook accounts to advance their own personal views?

  • Baby_Raptor

    Nobody is forcing you to read it. those of us who want to appreciate it. Don’t care? Don’t waste your time.

  • Baby_Raptor

    People who give a “Fucking shit” about everyone in the country getting equal rights. Don’t like it? Don’t read it. We don’t need children here anyway. 

  • BCP

    I care that I’ve had to read this “news” at least 4 times today, and that it is stooping to the level of r/atheism in content. I care because I’d rather see this blog cover relevant information other that the potential that a fast food chain MAY have created a fake Facebook profile.

    But certainly you’ve proven your point by responding!

  • Liquidsiphon

    Atheists don’t watch football? Damn.

  • Stev84

    No. It’s an abomination. You will go to atheist hell if you do

  • Stev84

    Yup. Being a family owned business there would still be some negative reactions, but private vs company money really makes a huge difference here.

  • Liquidsiphon

    I’m a Rams fan. I don’t need atheist hell. 

  • True ® atheists don’t.

    Cue the bagpipes!

  • ganner918

    You “had” to read it?

  • UUu

    Everyone does have equal rights. A gay man can marry a woman as much as a straight man can. A straight man can’t marry another man just as a gay man can’t. The only difference is in preference. Polygamists can’t legally marry more than one person either, and someone can’t marry his cousin.

  • And if the Constitution was amended so that Buddhism was the only permissible religion, would everybody have equal rights because they’d all have the right to be Buddhists?

  • Your argument is typical theistic homophobic bullshit. Straight men and women can marry *whomever it is they love.* Right wing batshit ethically-crippled Christians won’t allow gays and lesbians do this. Why? Because they can’t stand the Other. They don’t want it to exist, but it does, so assholes like yourself do everything you can to make their lives a living hell.

    So fuck you, fuck your religion, fuck your sick, twisted values and fuck your god. At least Thor was consistent.

  • Baby_Raptor

    What’s equal about one set of people being allowed to marry the person they love and one set not?

    Oh, nevermind. I know. It fits your talking point. 

    Sexuality is not a preference. It’s not a choice. If you choose to continue to believe that it is over the fact that it isn’t, that’s fine. But stop lying and stop trying to deny ponies rights that the Constitution gives them.

  • Isilzha

    There was an influx of some idiots at Slate earlier today who were all saying the SAME stupid things.  At 5pm EDT the commenting just abruptly stopped.  It was like they just evaporated.  I’m guessing though that their shift ended!

  • Actually, 1st cousins can marry each other in more states than men can marry men, or women can marry women.

  • Isilzha

    Why do people make posts like this?  If you don’t care then WHY are you posting about it??

  • Isilzha

    So, exactly how did you HAVE to read it.  You do know that headlines have a purpose right?  They tell you what the subject of an article is about and if that subject doesn’t appeal to you then you move on and find one that does.  Is it REALLY so hard??

  • Kari Lynn

    You know that Vishnu (in the form of his only female avatar, Mohini)  had a child with Shiva, who is also a male deity, right? 

    So how is Shiva anyway?

  • eskomo

    Twice!

  • Stev84

    Courts have rejected that “argument” as far back as 1948 in Perez v. Sharp. The freedom to marry means the right to marry the partner of one’s choice.

    And yeah, cousin marriage:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

  • Wow, that’s an interesting read.  Particularily the dissent, which seems to rely on the argument from tradition.

    It is difficult to see why such laws, valid when enacted and constitutionally enforceable in this state for nearly 100 years and elsewhere for a much longer period of time, are now unconstitutional under the same Constitution and with no change in the factual situation.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16628726707857061522&q=Perez+v.+Sharp&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1 

  •  This blog has to cater to your preferences why, exactly? As others pointed out, we find these stories interesting. If this blog (or any other medium for that matter) doesn’t cover stuff you are interested in, you’re free to unsubscribe any time.

  • LesterBallard

    Someone held a fucking gun to your head and forced you to read past the title/headline?

  • Edmond

    What would motivate you to marry a lesbian (I’m assuming you’re male)? Or vice versa? Would you encourage your daughter to marry a gay man? Is that a marriage worth pursuing, for anyone involved? Doesn’t marriage grant protections and provisions for the relationship between you and the person you fall in love with, and intend to spend the rest of your life with? Whose loved ones would benefit from a gay/straight marriage like that? If I marry a woman, how would that benefit my relationship with my partner of 8 years? How does that provide the protections that he and I seek for US? How and why would this strange woman be involved?

    Heterosexuals have the right to pick their own spouses, while homosexuals seem to be relegated to accept whoever YOU approve FOR us. The day is coming when we BOTH can choose our own spouses, ones which compliment our lives in the best possible way. THEN we will have equal rights.

    This isn’t a question of having MULTIPLE partners, like polygamists. This is about being allowed to have just the ONE. No heterosexual is prevented from falling in love with someone and marrying that person, they just can’t keep running with the concept endlessly. Should they? Do the WOMEN usually seem to be treated well in those arrangements? Is a marriage of two people equal to a marriage of twelve, or is there a way to turn the benefits of marriage into a numbers game?

    And you actually CAN marry your cousin, your FIRST cousin, in nearly two dozen US states. How about that, huh? And only THREE explicitly refuse to recognize cousin marriages from other states. What was that about equality?

    We don’t allow marriages between CLOSE family members, like between siblings, or between parents and children, but the point of marriage is to MAKE people INTO family. Marriage takes two people who are unrelated, and makes them into family members, so they have all the rights that they ALREADY have with a brother or sister, or a child or parent. There’s no NEED for people who are already family to marry and become family.

    You’re ignoring orientation. Everyone has one. You do, I do, polygamists and the incestuous do. But polygamy and incest are not orientations themselves. No man is ONLY able to fall in love with multiple persons. No young girl grew up just aching to be able to fall in love with that cute boy at school, if only he were her brother.

    Some people are seeking to write laws that specifically exclude people of same-sex orientations from being able to participate in marriage in any useful or meaningful way–with the single person that they have met and fallen in love with. These laws aren’t being created out of some sudden NEED, they directly target gay people, out of a sense of hatred, or disgust, or superiority, or religious incongruity, or a combination of any or all of these. But it is all unmerited slander. This is the perfect example of inequality.

    Whew! What IS the character limit here, anyway?

  • michael both

    I guess what happens is that there are certain issues that are ‘hot’ for a few days or a couple of weeks, and this blog often follows the issues through from beginning to end. Personally I like this approach, as I don’t like being left wondering ‘ok, so what happened?’.
    However with the feminist / who said what to who in the elevator topic, I got a bit tired of it. My solution – not visit for a few days, then quickly scan through the ‘old’ threads started to see if there was anything of interest (and skipping over the topic I wasn’t interested in).
    All blogs or internet stuff can become a drag. Sometimes just taking a holiday for a little while can make it interesting again. I’m a hard-core atheist, but even I don’t want to read or think about atheist stuff a lot of the time.

  • AxeGrrl

    Everyone does have equal rights. A gay man can marry a woman as much as a straight man can.

    *rolling eyes*  Please, not that tiresome, ridiculous ‘reply’ again.

    Do those of you who spout it actually think about it at all?

    It always makes me think of this great quote:

    “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” ~ Anatole France

  • Silo, I would like this comment a Million times if I could. 

  • Reginald Selkirk

     Football is a religion. Take note of what happened at Penn State.

  • “A straight man can’t marry another man just as a gay man can’t.”

    In CT, IA, MA, NH, NY and Washington, DC, they most certainly can. 

  • Frank

    There is no right to marry and sexual preference is not a constitutionally protected class.

  • The Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right.

  • This is why Google Search-by-image is A Good Thing® .

  • evan

    Well, if the Jim Henson Company follows through with a lawsuit to counter the bogus claims of “unsafe” toys being pulled, perhaps the IP address of the fake poster will come out in discovery. That should reveal something.

  • Chick-fil-a is also in the middle of a law suit too boot. One of the chains in Georgia has been firing women who are pregnant so they can be “stay at home moms” against the women’s wishes. 
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/brenda-honeycutt-chick-fil-a-sues-gender-discrimination_n_1709645.html