Support NeoGAF

[CDX]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/04/07/chick-fil-a-fast-food-dan-cathy/7250871/

Chick-fil-A is finally crossing the road.

The iconic chicken chain, as well-known for its conservative heritage as its savory eats, is recalibrating its moral and culinary compass. It wants to go from old school to almost cool. It wants to evolve from a place where gays once picketed to a place where they'll feel comfortable going to eat. It wants to broaden the brand as it expands nationally and plows into the Millennial-driven urban arena. Above all: it wants to be a serious player on fast-food's biggest stage.

USA TODAY was exclusively invited inside to visit the company's sprawling, wooded campus, get the first look at its new test kitchen, tour its store-of-the-future development facility and interview Chick-fil-A's controversial CEO Dan Cathy. Cathy, whose comments condemning gay marriage in 2012 set off store picketing and a social media firestorm, has now fully backed away from such public pronouncements that mix personal opinion on social issues with corporate policy.


"All of us become more wise as time goes by," he says, apologetically, in a rare, one-hour sit-down interview. "We sincerely care about all people."

About two years ago, Cathy made headlines after conceding to being "guilty as charged," in confirming Chick-fil-A's support of the traditional family. Both ardent supporters and angry picketers showed up at stores. While Cathy's comments didn't hurt short-term business — and even helped it — Chick-fil-A executives recognize that the comments may have done longer-term damage to the brand's image at the very time it was eyeing major growth outside its friendly Southern market.

[...]

Chick-fil-A's socially conservative agenda, which formally led the company to donate millions to charitable groups opposed to gay marriage, has been tempered. This, just as the company aims to quickly expand into Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. Southern hospitality must give way to urban reality as the 1,800 store chain moves to compete with big city success stories like McDonald's, Panera Bread and Chipotle.

If nothing else, Cathy has listened. In 2012, Cathy not only heard from some unhappy consumers about his comments against gay marriage, but also from some store operators and employees. Now, he says, "I'm going to leave it to politicians and others to discuss social issues."

That's precisely what experts are advising. "He should put this as far behind him as fast as he possibly can," says Gary Stibel, CEO of New England Consulting Group.

Also a different article from last month that looks at their donations

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/03/03/3355701/chick-fil-2012-giving/

A year after nearly doubling its anti-LGBT giving, Chick-fil-A’s WinShape Foundation apparently reversed course in 2012, eliminating nearly all its grantmaking. Its separate Chick-fil-A Foundation made about $120,000 in grant donations, including about $25,000 to the anti-LGBT Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Between 2010 and 2011, Chick-fil-A’s corporate foundations increased their grants to anti-LGBT groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation and the National Christian Foundation, from $1.9 million to more than $3.6 million. Neither of these organizations received a penny in 2012, according to the foundations’ 2012 Form 990s, publicly available tax documents filed by non-profit organizations. The foundations’ overall spending was roughly even, meaning more of its efforts were focused on its own programs. But the drop from $3,623,938 to $25,390 in anti-LGBT donations represented a reduction of more than 99.2 percent.

In the summer of 2012, the company came under fire for its anti-LGBT giving and company president Dan Cathy’s comment that the company was “guilty as charged” of advocating a biblical view of the family. Amid the criticism, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and others organized a “Chick-fil-A” appreciation day.

But it appears that the company foundations scaled back anti-LGBT giving by simply scaling back all of its giving to outside non-profits. Their few donations included contributions to WinShape’s home in Brazil for needy children, scholarships for a Christian college in Georgia, and money for Habitat for Humanity and the United Negro College Fund.

 

[Shogmaster]

"We hate you fags, but we are serious about wanting your money"

 

[PassiveObserver]

Donating to gay rights causes would be a new direction.

 

[kulapik]

Not enough chicken puns.

 

[Trey]

"We hate you fags, but we are serious about wanting your money"

That's what you got out of this?

 

[RageInThePlagueAge]

good on them sort of. they're doing the right thing but not really for the right reasons.

still not giving them money

 

[airmangataosenai]

Relevant.

 

[Satch]

That's what you got out of this?

i wouldnt phrase it so bluntly but its probably tea

 

[AlteredBeast]

The FCA is not anti-LGBT in the conventional sense that the terminology entails. I would say their donations are effectively zero to outright anti-gay groups.

 

[Sheroking]

'I still feel this way, I'm just not going to remind you guys of it (except for right now), so you can stop boycotting my business please and thank you'

 

[Zane]

That's great and all but what food will they be serving now?

 

[Eknots]

Please give us your business. We REALLY REALLY want your money back

 

[User 406]

One might even say that Chick-fil-A's attempt at damage control is un-BEAR-able!

 

[chickdigger802]

fucking title, thought they were getting bone-in wings!

 

[Kangi]

Donate to a charity for LGBT homeless youth or a similar cause. Until then, it's just talk.

 

[bobawesome]

That's what you got out of this?

Gotta get that super awesome first post in.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Gotta get that super awesome first post in.

It's not inaccurate. Did you read the article?

 

[EatinOlives]

Cathy didn't change his stance, just stopped talking about it. The company didn't stop donating to anti-LGBT organizations, just drastically cut its funding. They haven't even donated a penny to pro-LGBT-equality organizations.

Don't see at all how this is a "new direction".

 

[riotous]

Pay yourself the money you used to donate.

Donate it anyways.

Make the pay/donation slightly smaller to account for tax hit (since the company can't write it off.) Charities get slightly less but now it's a personal donation.

Profit?

 

[phillipgessert]

Headline by Leslie Knope.

 

[brotherbean]

Eh, gave up eating there after the news broke a couple of years ago and truthfully haven't missed it. I appreciate that he's making an effort to separate his company from his moral/political/religious beliefs but I sincerely doubt that will be enough to regain the business of most people who've given it up over this.

 

[Trey]

i wouldnt phrase it so bluntly but its probably tea

A public apology, a cessation of anti-gay donations, all while profits increased in the short term. The man was made aware how his actions hurt people (and his brand), and took steps to correct those actions. Even if it was done in part or whole because of the damage he was doing to CFA's brand, that means his motives and those who boycotted CFA's aligned in this situation.

This is a significant thing to happen; a rich white Christian was forced to see that certain viewpoints and actions carry consequence in society.

 

[Horse Detective]

There isn't any real scenario where people would be enthusiastic about this anyway. Even if he was genuine.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

The FCA is not anti-LGBT in the conventional sense that the terminology entails. I would say their donations are effectively zero to outright anti-gay groups.

So they've stopped moving in a direction destructive to the rights of the LGBT community. They'd need to start moving in the a positive direction to undo the damage, and there's zero likelihood of that so yeah, sticking to other places for sandwiches for now.

 

[Eric C]

Chick-fil-A wants millennials to spend money at Chick-Fil-A

Chick-fil-A realizes Dan Cathy's views don't align with the majority of millienials.

It's somewhat comforting, that society is progressing so fast, that even a religious company like Chick-Fil-A realizes the economic reality of what anti-gay views mean to business, and is at the very least TRYING to change that perception, even if their views never really changed.

That gives me a lot of hope for society in general. Still personally won't eat at Chick-Fil-A though.

 

[Somnid]

That's fine. He's entitled to his views, he just shouldn't be using his corporate profits to force them on others.

 

[terrisus]

USA Today trying to see how many puns they can fit into an article?

 

[Battersea Power Station]

That's fine. He's entitled to his views, he just shouldn't be using his corporate profits to force them on others.

I definitely am not in favor of outlawing thoughts or opinions or anything like that. Totally against it.

I just want to point out that whenever someone says "he's entitled to his views," it's usually about anti-gay sentiments. I don't hear people saying that about racists. I don't hear it about mysoginists. Whenever I hear it, it's regarding someone claiming that homosexuality should be "discouraged" and that it doesn't deserve the same treatment as other sexual orientations.

Why are we so eager to protect specifically these people's opinions above all other hurtful opinions?

 

[bobawesome]

It's not inaccurate. Did you read the article?

Yes, way to jump to conclusions. What exactly were you expecting from them as a company? As for the CEO, I don't think they were ever in the wrong.They're entitled to believe whatever they want as a human being.
To just sum it up as

We hate you fags, but we are serious about wanting your money

makes you look like a neckbearded manchild. They're admitting that they were wrong. But yes, feel free to twist this around and say "oh, well of course they have to say this" and "it's too late".

 

[Fragamemnon]

The FCA is not anti-LGBT in the conventional sense that the terminology entails. I would say their donations are effectively zero to outright anti-gay groups.

I agree with this as well. I think the FCA is getting a bad rap from that quote above. There's a huge gap between their position and behavior vs. the more aggressive anti-LGBT groups out there.

I still don't eat there, but it's mostly because we have Bojangles here and don't need CFA.

 

[Arkos]

The "scandal" didn't hurt their profits one bit in the short term. Long term perhaps, but they are also changing their policies.

Where do we draw the line? I tried to avoid CFA once this shit went down, but if they're not making a public policy of it any more, even if we know how their CEO feels, should we boycott them?

As is often proposed, I'm sure you could find a reason to boycott just about every company. Where is the line?! Please tell me that I can start eating CFA biscuits again.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

They're admitting that they were wrong.

They're admitting that it was wrong to enter the realm of public discussion.

I have no problem with that. I don't mind companies and CEOs trying to foment social change. I do mind when that change is towards making some people feel like they're "less than" and that they have to be somehow perceived as separate in society. That's wrong no matter how you slice it.

So they apologized for entering the political realm because it might hurt them when they enter new markets. They did not apologize for monetarily contributing to the discrimination of a group of people. I have no problem with summarizing this as as "we still have a problem with gays but we want all of you to buy our chicken," or the more dramatized, vulgar version Shog posted. Very clever with the neckbeard comment; I generally keep it clean, though.

 

[Ala Alba]

That's fine. He's entitled to his views, he just shouldn't be using his corporate profits to force them on others.

The Eich Firefox boycott shows that the plenty of people do not hold your view (especially on this site).

The "scandal" didn't hurt their profits one bit in the short term. Long term perhaps, but they are also changing their policies.

Where do we draw the line? I tried to avoid CFA once this shit went down, but if they're not making a public policy of it any more, even if we know how their CEO feels, should we boycott them?

As is often proposed, I'm sure you could find a reason to boycott just about every company. Where is the line?! Please tell me that I can start eating CFA biscuits again.

Again, it seems that the personal views and opinions of a CEO is more than enough reason to boycott a company.

 

[AlexMogil]

Still not gonna eat there.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

The "scandal" didn't hurt their profits one bit in the short term. Long term perhaps, but they are also changing their policies.

Where do we draw the line? I tried to avoid CFA once this shit went down, but if they're not making a public policy of it any more, even if we know how their CEO feels, should we boycott them?

As is often proposed, I'm sure you could find a reason to boycott just about every company. Where is the line?! Please tell me that I can start eating CFA biscuits again.

Why let others draw the line for you? Can't you just make a reasonable conclusion for yourself?

As the CEO and the company have not apologized to the targets of their prior campaigning and have taken zero steps to remedy anything more than their public image those who had an existing objection to spending money there have no reason to simply forgive and forget.

 

[red13th]

Good thing they stopped donating that heavily to hate groups. I wanted to try Chick Fil-a once, maybe this year I'll give it a go when I'm in Denver.

EDIT: Wait they donated to charity here in Brazil, that's actually pretty cool.

 

[Smellycat]

My stance towards Chick-fil-A has always been this:

 

[LumpOfCole]

Good thing they stopped donating that heavily to hate groups. I wanted to try it once, maybe this year I'll give it a go when I'm in Denver.

The grammar here makes it sound like you want to donate to hate groups when you're in Denver.

 

[red13th]

The grammar here makes it sound like you want to donate to hate groups when you're in Denver.

It does, I edited it for clarity

 

[Yuuichi]

Donating to gay rights causes would be a new direction.

I could get behind this, and it would show that they are at least willing to care a little bit.

 

[Dead Man]

People think he doesn't hate gays now? That's cute. Glad he is going to be throwing his money around less, but anyone who thinks he has had a sincere change of heart is delusional.

 

[fallagin]

Welp, um. I guess this is a change in the right direction. Seems a bit slimy though.

They realize that they are on the losing side of history and now they want to slink back in the headlines.

Edit:

Pay yourself the money you used to donate.

Donate it anyways.

Make the pay/donation slightly smaller to account for tax hit (since the company can't write it off.) Charities get slightly less but now it's a personal donation.

Profit?

This is what I'm thinking.

I'll probably keep away from this restaurant until there is a non shithead ceo running it. Which, who know when that'll happen.

 

[Coins]

I'll eat there when they start hiring people who openly practice lifestyles the Christian right doesn't agree with.

 

[Bubble Metropolis]

People think he doesn't hate gays now?

No one thinks that.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on issues that are important to me (as this one is), particularly those behind a known Christian organization, and I am largely willing to ignore that should they keep their individual views separate from their company or their works (in the case of authors, etc.). I think, for the sake of sanity, most people go along this line as well; people would go insane if they knew the social or political stances of the heads of every major corporation or artist and then attempted to navigate around them. To that end, this is appeasing.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

they just opened one of these in my city, and despite getting two coupons in the mail I still have yet to check it out. I don't eat FF much, but when I expect I would really enjoy their menu.

 

[Fornaximus]

I still wanna try their food but they're all so far away.

 

[Dead Man]

No one thinks that.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on issues that are important to me (as this one is), particularly those behind a known Christian organization, and I am largely willing to ignore that should they keep their individual views separate from their company or their works (in the case of authors, etc.). I think, for the sake of sanity, most people go along this line as well; people would go insane if they knew the social or political stances of the heads of every major corporation or artist and then attempted to navigate around them. To that end, this is appeasing.

People in this thread took issue with a poster saying he still hates gays people.

And I am certainly not willing to ignore people just so I can give them money for shit I can get elsewhere.

 

[Dash_]

Lol. Okay.

 

[mollipen]

I have no problem with Cathy believing whatever he wants, and I don't think they should be forced to make any donations to organizations their heads don't support.

The problem I had was knowing my money, if I ate there, was going to help anti-LGBT organizations. If they totally cut out those donations, I'm fine with them.

 

[Grym]

I'll buy my fast food (which I don't buy much of anyway) elsewhere until they offset their anti-lgbt donations with pro-lgbt donations. I suspect I'll be waiting awhile. Oh well