UPDATE: The illustration seen below has been removed from the Gazette editorial board’s Facebook page. It’s been replaced by a new one of the Chick-Fil-A cows holding signs that say “no gay marriage.” Along with this message, which you can judge for yourself:
As so many found the original cartoon offensive, I have replaced it with this. The cartoon that caused so much commotion was a slam against homophobia, obtained from a gay rights publication. It characterized the business as the anti-gay Westorough [sic–Pols] Baptist cult and then said “we didn’t invent homophobia, but we inextricably endorse it.” This was presented to illustrate the strong nature of the backlash against the company and was clearly not presented as an insult to gays.
—–
We were forwarded this item last night from the Colorado Springs Gazette editorial board’s Facebook page. We’ve been trying to come up with a rational explanation for it, no luck so far:
This Facebook post links to an editorial on the Gazette website titled “Support freedom; eat at Chick-Fil-A.” The editorial encourages readers to eat at Chick-Fil-A despite the recent controversy over remarks made by that chain’s president disparaging of same-sex marriage.
The thing is, the image that the Gazette board chose for this Facebook post is not on the side of Chick-fil-A. Appropriating the words of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church with placards held by cows is quite obviously not intended to cast Chick-Fil-A in a positive light.
Yet here it is being invoked to “support freedom by dining at Chic-Fil-A [sic]?”
We keep thinking there must be a too-clever-by-half message in using this photo to support Chick-Fil-A during the present controversy, but like we said, we haven’t figured out what it is.
And some interpretations of the meaning here are, needless to say, not real good.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: davebarnes
IN: Extra Pod: The Scourge of Uncertified Potatoes (feat. Christy Powell)
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Dave Williams, Vickie Tonkins Accused of Criminal Tampering With Delegate Process
BY: hursa
IN: Half-Assed Attack on Secretary of State’s Office Backfires on Gabe Evans
BY: harrydoby
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Half-Assed Attack on Secretary of State’s Office Backfires on Gabe Evans
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Rep. Brandi Bradley Echoes “Dr. Chaps” Death Threats
BY: Schrodingers Dog
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Schrodingers Dog
IN: Rep. Brandi Bradley Echoes “Dr. Chaps” Death Threats
BY: harrydoby
IN: Monday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Apparently, Jim Henson ended his relationship with CF because of the anti-gay activities it endorses.
CF now says that it was THEY who ended the relationship because the puppets (I presume a give away or something) didn’t fit right on the kiddies fingers.
Probably copping a gay feel, or something.
This is one of those cases when the full context makes it even worse. How icky of you, Wayne Laugesen.
…of where you stand on the Chick-Fil-A thing, this is pretty tasteless and idiotic.
You mean on the smart side or the loonatic side?
I think it does matter and this is a lot less tasteless or idiotic to the loons.
…at least I hope to god nobody important posted this.
After all, they let Laugesen run their editorial page.
are when someone is completely honest on an issue. What you have here is the Gazette being honest about their bigotry. What’s really sad is that a large percentage of the people in Colo Spgs will agree with them.
.
first, the editorial board of the Gazette supports gay marriage. I didn’t know that 30 minutes ago; I sure don’t.
Second, this is OBVIOUSLY a hack.
Third, Dead Guvs, you are going to get subpoenaed over this. Save everything.
Fourth, show some sense and take this down until you can confirm that this represents the Gazette’s views. It doesn’t.
.
Everyone here probably already knows that.
So why pretend to believe that this is authentic ?
Whoever sent this to you was in on the hack.
You will have to give them up sometime, why not identify them right here, right now ?
Why would we possibly be subpoenaed over this?
Just to post a moderately foolish choice of graphic and a link to one of the paper’s articles.
at least according to the update. I guess the Guvs can quit waiting for the fateful subpoena to make its guest appearance.
But as CT theories go, yours WAS fun to read, Barron. So thanks for that, I guess.
I actually had to ready you twice to make sure you weren’t being, you know, OBVIOUSLY satirical. Anyway, by PSing yourself, you gave the guvs time to shred the memos before the feds arrived.
When I was a little girl, many years ago, I was taught that God loved everyone.
The Gazette is spreading blasphemy for which the fires of hell shall rain upon them.
Oh, I forgot, that already happened.
And for those who think I am being serious, I am not. Except for the part about God loving everyone.
.
some of the community members here apparently understand the basic contradiction, like NDE,
but want so BAD to believe this is true, that the libertarian Gazette would publicly proclaim hatred of homosexuals.
What would CoPols do in this case if it was a classy operation ?
.
yes, that graphic was on the site,
but it also said that it was taken from a homosexual rights advocacy website.
You, CoPols, or your contributor, edited that part out.
Shame on you, either for making the edit, or not checking the link your own darn selves.
.
The Gazette edited it, not Pols (duh). They’ve removed the graphic now.
Why haven’t they taken it down?
But, hey, that was really classy of you to make accusations and castigate Pols before you bothered to investigate.
That image means something completely different when it’s being used on an LGBT advocate’s website.
Also, “LGBT” or “GLBT” is a lot easier to type than the misleading, and somewhat epithetic “homosexual.” Just a friendly suggestion.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Though abysmally expressed.
Business owners have a right to whatever religious views they want to hold and financial contributions to religiously-based bigoted organizations they want to make.
So long as they don’t use these same bigoted opinions to restrict access to their business, whether in hiring or customer access, cities don’t have the right to tell them they can’t set up shop. That would restrict their free exercise of religion and speech.
Private citizens have the right to boycott, to choose not to have their products associated with speech they deem offensive through promotions, to refuse to accept advertising etc, but city governments do not have the right to ban businesses because of owners’ freely expressed opinions.
We’d be hearing a lot of screaming on this site if municipalities with predominantly Christian right councils and mayors started banning businesses with owners known to take progressive positions on social issues. Will we allow municipalities to ban a business with a pro-choice owner? An anti-choice owner? An atheist owner who has expressed the opinion that “under God” should be removed from the pledge? A Christian owner who has advocated for a constitutional amendment that would allow Christianity to become the official state religion?
Really stupid to go there and, of course, such bans couldn’t possibly stand up in court, nor should they.
I wish I could boycott Chik-fil-A for this recent crap, but I’ve already been boycotting them for ages, so I have nothing to subtract from their cash flow.
Still, I urge anyone who supports LGBT rights to boycott them, and doubly-so on the 1st. (Some have suggested going in and ordering a water; I’m not really that petty…)
at Chi-Fil-A or In’n Out
they refused a job (in CA) to a friend of my neice’s because she is Muslim. Even told her so and laughed at her when she was leaving
wear New Balance shoes.
God, is nothing holy?
Nothing like a Double-Double with a side of the fries they peel, split, and cook right there.
The best.
In n Out is probably the most overrated burger ever. It’s passable, but that’s all.
I think the problem is that they have Bible quotes on their wrappers and cups. I’m trying to remember if they’re the more controversial ones or not – I don’t think so. But if you don’t want to support proselytizing by corporations…
Last had an INO in San Francisco December 2006. Many when I lived in SoCal. Always thought they were one of the better chain burgers, but hey, each to their own.
If a food chain wants to be religious on the face of it, I’m OK with that. Might well eat there just to observe and maybe tweak the employees.
But when they support narrow minded causes like CF is, then I certainly will not give them my money.
“But when they support narrow minded causes like CF is, then I certainly will not give them my money.”
I’ve avoided Chick Fil A for a very long time now because of their extroverted evangelism. Not because their religion is offensive, but because a company like that had to be supporting repressive social conservative causes all along. Their stance on marriage equality proves it, but I’m okay with personally boycotting businesses solely on what I suspect they support.
I only ever tried out In N Out once, last summer when I found myself in Orem, UT. I think the key word in your description is “chain” – I honestly can’t find a decent chain burger, although Smashburger is sometimes alright. But just alright…
That you propose we now only go to stores where the owners agree with us politically? Do you really want to see us divide into two halves with no interaction of any kind?
yet semi-free country, I am only suggesting that you are as free as I to follow your conscience and the dictates of your heart in your decisions to support, or not support, any enterprise for any reason you choose.
I’m not advocating for what you, or anyone else should do.
I personally will never go to At-The-Beach. 1) – I don’t do tanning, and 2) – I truly hate their absolutely gawdawful commercials. That’s just me. YMMV.
uses car honking sounds or sirens in radio ads. I hate it when I’m changing lanes after checking my mirrors and doing the over the shoulder glance to be startled by what sounds like someone honking at me. Not political. Just pisses me off.
didn’t like the food. Now I am certain I will never go there again.
a mall food court with my five year old, who is now a 29 year old, and it had the shortest line. So, banned or not, not much of a dent in my lifestyle. As far as burgers i don’t fine d any of the fast food chains to be more than marginally better or worse than any other. If you’re ever in Littleton proper go downtown to Merle’s for a good burger and fresh cut, never saw a freezer fries. Locally owned stand alone. Nice reasonably priced local art on walls for sale, too.
Barron X made some mistakes pointing fingers, but he’s right that the Gazette endorsed gay marriage. Their use of the graphic was not hatred.
But they are the Colorado Springs Gazette, not the National Lampoon.
That they didn’t succeed in making their point. I’m just trying to explain what I think they meant, because the Gazette has endorsed gay marriage.
so, how come nobody is surprised ?
We never know when you’re serious anyway.
surprised that no one’s surprised? Something not obvious?
.
Even I was offended, and some folks here classify me as a “homophobe.”
I was offended mostly by the blatant misrepresentation about the nature of God.
But also hurt by the hate toward my brother and sister homosexuals.
I was so stunned that I didn’t make the connection to Chik-Fil-A management and what it said, or tried to say, about them.
I thought nobody could be so stupid as to post that on their own site, whether as parody or satire or whatever.
Oops.
……….
But folks here mostly didn’t doubt that the Gazette might intentionally do such a thing.
Wow.
…….
I reacted pretty fast, emailing everyone I could at the Gazette, linking to this diary and warning them about the libel (or is it slander) that I thought CoPols was abetting.
Apologies to the dead Guvs.
…… what was it that Forrest’s Momma said about stupid ?
Happens to all of us eventually. 🙂
“offended mostly by the blatant misrepresentation about the nature of God”, Barron?
You may disagree with someone else’s view of the nature of God but since when is it offensive for others not to share your particular belief?
but I hope you understand that my question was a teasing and rhetorical reply to your question. Maybe I should have used ;~)
I don’t know which is worse – that they would use this satire of homophobia to rally the troops for freedom or that they don’t understand the concept of Freedom of Speech. Well, yes, I do. This was disgusting and someone should have been fired over it.
But to the 2nd point, how is it that a newspaper editorial board has hired someone who hasn’t taken or passed a civics class? To state the obvious, Freedom of Speech means the government can’t willy nilly limit your speech just because they don’t like it. It has nothing to do with there being consequences if your speech is offensive, stupid, or just repugnant to a group of citizens who choose to flex their will.
If Chick Fil A wants to say the toxic sludge used to water their potato supplier’s field is pristine, that is their perogative. But if I find out otherwise, I am not limiting their “freedom of speech” by warning people that they are liars.
This Facebook post was repugnant but their basic lack of understanding of the concept of Freedom of Speech is offensive.
when the mayor of Boston stated (then retracted… or “clarified”) his public intent to stop the business from expanding in Boston, and there are similar efforts underway to prevent them from obtaining permits in Chicago. If this were just a public relations issue, you’d be right, but sadly, some people really are threatening free speech in their reaction.