Bill de Blasio Picks-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A because he’s a ______
fill in the blank
NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has his problems, including a probe into alleged campaign fundraising improprieties.
So what did he do?
Pick-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A.
Via BizPac Review (h/t Bo Snerdly):
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has called for a boycott of popular restaurant chain Chick-fil-A, presumably for its founder, Dan Cathy’s, past public statements supporting traditional marriage.
“What the ownership of Chick-fil-A has said is wrong,” the mayor said at a press conference, the New York Daily News reported.
De Blasio conceded that, of course, the restaurant does “have a legal right” to exist but he won’t be giving it any business.
“I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorkers to patronize them,” he said as a new location is set to open in the Queens Center Mall this fall.
Rather than being happy a new business is opening in his city and creating jobs de Blasio cannot fathom a business existing whose ownership doesn’t agree with him on gay marriage.
Although there is no obvious record of de Blasio criticizing any Muslim owned businesses whose proprietors feel the same way.
Steve Cuozzo at The NY Post calls de Blasio’s clucking travesty:
Eat it, Bill de Blasio!
Your suggestion that we avoid Chick-Fil-A because the company’s president disapproves of same-sex marriage made me gag.
The national chicken chain is opening more outlets around town, drawing happy throngs and creating jobs in formerly empty storefronts.
This was how the mayor welcomed them on Monday: “I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorker to patronize them.”
Chick-Fil-A will survive. But as long as de Blasio’s trashing eateries in order to stroke special interests — common sense be damned — why won’t he take on other restaurants which might offend certain ethnic and gender sensitivities?
Needless to say, the boycott call is not working:
When Chick-fil-A opened in NYC, lines were around the corner, and New Yorkers seem to love eating Mor Chicken:
In NYC. There are 80,000 restaurants here. …and this is the line for @ChickfilA. pic.twitter.com/DKD89lii3W
— branthansen (@branthansen) October 3, 2015
None of this targeting of Chick-fil-A is new. Whenever liberal politicians want someone to politically grill, Chick-fil-A seems to be on the menu. Remember when liberal politicians tried to ban Chick-fil-A from NYC, Boston and Chicago?
Mor Chicken lovers around the country launched Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and Legal Insurrection readers sent in dozens of photos and video.
[Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day 2012 – Lee, Newport Beach, CA]
Fill in the blank:
Bill de Blasio Picks-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A because he’s a ______.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Does he have a franchise?
Because he’s a chicken.
Bill de Blasio Pics-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A because he’s a #NewYorkValues mayor.
Wasn’t this battle settled back in 2012 ?
He’s an _____.
because Chick Fil A didn’t offer him a bribe.
Amazing blunder.
The PC types insist that their bigotries are the norm; anyone who thinks otherwise must be on “the wrong side of history,” or something. Key to this fraud is that the general public never be allowed a say. I certainly don’t remember anyone asking me to vote for whether what the ownership of Chick-fil-A has said was wrong.
But, if you consider a boycott to be basically a vote with some money attached, a call for a boycott is effectively a call for a vote. And the consistent vote on Chick-fil-A certainly seems to say that no, what the ownership of Chick-fil-A has said is not wrong. And that blows the PC narrative out of the water.
Either that, or the chicken is really good.
The chicken IS really good. And the restaurants are always really clean. And, best of all, the service is always great. The places are simply well managed and staffed by quality people.
I agree 100%. There’s a Chick-fil-A in West Des Moines where the service is as good as any I’ve received anywhere (and I’ve lived in four states and in London). The restaurant is spotless and the food is really good.
The staff are invariably courteous. The service is impeccable. And they play tasteful Christian music. In other words, it’s a progressive’s nightmare.
In the midst of this contentious election season, it’s nice to have something we can all agree on.
I am on the right side of biology.
“He created Male and Female and He blessed them.”
Listen to the guy in the tux!
And the lines are still long from the last boycott.
No DeBlasio is picking a fight because he’s trying to distract from his legal problems.
Rhymes with Clucker?
Is he going to force them t/b open on Sunday?
If De Blasio ever comes into the Chik-fil-a, they should refuse to serve him. Then he’ll really get his panties in a wad.
They *could* refuse to serve de Blasio, but they won’t. Why? Because they set substantially higher standards for themselves. They treat others as they themselves wish to be treated: with dignity and respect. de Blasio and his ilk refuse to learn from the good example set by the owners and employees of Chick-Fil-A.
Bill de Blasio picks a fight with chick fil a because he’s a – future criminal defendant.
On the previous Appreciation Day, I drove for over an hour to eat lunch at the nearest Chick-fil-A. It was awesome! Both the drive up and the lobby were packed, but the crowd was polite and cheerful. The management had brought in extra staff to deal with the tidal wave of people and they handled it well. To fill in the blank. …de Blasio is an a$$.
This is so cool: Touching Moment as Chick-fil-a Employee Signs To Hearing-impaired Customer (YouTube video)
…and here’s the SJW (Adam Smith) who disrespected the girl at the window: Former Lecturer/Corporate CFO Bullies Chick-fil-A Clerk . I read he still can’t find a job and is living on food stamps three years later. LOL!
It is blazingly inappropriate for an elected Mayor to call for a boycott of a business that operates lawfully in his city. Chick-Fil-A has three locations in New York City, including one at NYU.
…because he’s an authoritarian fundamentalist of Stalinist ilk.
It has been apparent for a while now that NYC’s authoritarian fundamentalist mayor de Ceaușescu demands a socialist state that has a taste only for more authoritarian fundamentalist repression and for banal secularism.
Chick-Fil-A, NYC values are only to be determined by mayor de Ceaușescu. Or else.
It’s a distraction and attempt to rally his base for support. Fortunately it does not seem to be working.
Because Preet’s getting close to an indictment.
Because he’s a -hole.
Also because he’s a liberal progressive totalitarian Democrat.
But, mainly because he’s a-hole.
It’s bogus because the homosexual totalitarians won. The Chik-Fil-A founder, now deceased, essentially surrendered to the totalitarians shortly after they made their demands.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/28/it-s-time-for-gays-to-forgive-chick-fil-a.html
Probably because Chick-fil-A’s resistance expanded scrutiny of the “=” movement to reveal it supports selective exclusion under the liberals’ pro-choice religious doctrine. Pro-choice is not just about abortion rites (i.e. “final solution”) and planned parenthood (i.e. clinical cannibalism), but also about establishing State-sponsored discrimination of politically unfavorable diversity classes.
Related:
The likes of Chick Fil A and Hobby Lobby inspired my wife and I to stand up a scholarship fund for students going to college debt free.
We stood this up, because we believe that the Dave Ramsey movement that is sweeping Christian households will give rise to others with this level of integrity.
When people with integrity hold the money and have influence, America and the world is a better place.
We are at war. I’m investing in the future of our side.
Great idea!
Even BETTER ACTION…!!!
I second that!
“…he’s a”ware his days are numbered
because he’s a bit more vulnerable than before, and thinks he can get some more support by joining the anti-free speech forces.
But in meanwhile, worse he’s getting ready to sign that law requiring stores to charge amandatory 5 cent plastic or paper bag fee.
Exceptions: plastic bags medicines are put in; purchases made with food stamps, or WIC; the bags used inside the store to preserve and wrap fruits and vegetables or meat; and of course, bags used to deliver newspapers and bags used to deleiver packages of store circulars. Boxes are OK too I guess. People with cars, or who take deliveries may not have too much of a problem.
The law would go into effect October 1 and the city would begin charging fines next April 1.
So now, people will carry around with them like people used to do in Russsia under Commusnism, the “re-usable bags will break, and they will try to avoid double bagging things, causing more food to drop in the street. And meanwhile pay what amounts to maybe a 3% sales tax on food.
The way it’s now, at Shoprite for instance, either customers bag their own groeceries, taking whatever bags they want, or groceries get bagged AFTER check-out. Is somebody now supposed to count bags??
And all quite pointless. People re-use the plastic bags for garbage etc, the bags don’t cause trouble, any other bags cost more in energy etc.
The bags that are used in Chinese stores to keep rice might be strong enough.
Is that $.05 per bag or just an extra $.05 at checkout for having your purchases bagged? I’m assuming the former since that would generate some outrage for adding quite a bit more to what you pay if you’ve bought a lot of items (such as grocery shopping for a big family).
My main reuse of plastic bags is for when I’m cleaning out my cat’s litter box. I usually double sack too as I want to minimize that breaking open and spilling out!
I’ll take NYC’s Chick Fil A’s restaurants here please.
This is just another of those nutso social/governmental frictions that could be simply alleviated by recalling what the principle function of matrimony evolved from: the need for a legal provision to control and protect property rights. So to eliminate the constant blather of religious nuts, why not make marriage a religious-only practice joining couples in whatever spiritual coupling their faith espouses, allowing each religious group to determine whom they will and will not join. And then have an entirely separate civil process, perhaps labeled “civil union” as a formal legal partnership allowing any two people (I’d even allow more, but then I’m much more liberal than most people who are constrained by their reflexive social preconceptions) to be joined for purposes of property rights, taxes, and inheritance. The religious stuff would satisfy the need for people’s Lord’s approval, and the civil stuff would be an additional or alternative requirement for the non-emotional conjunction of parties to fulfill legal requirements. Like so much of government, this is a simple problem with a complicated, long-standing, inadequate solution imposed. Split the G0d crap from the law crap, and the problem is solved.