The Chicago Way With Chik-Fil-A

There is a sense in which we all argue that is statistical. For instance, if we say of a group that it sports an “arrogant attitude” we do not mean that all members of that group are arrogant, but that many of the group are, or that a clear majority of the leaders of the group are arrogant.

Or we might say, “Progressives are inflexible and unwilling to listen to counter-argument” and by this we do not mean that each and every soul who labels herself a progressive is inflexible and unwilling to listen to counter-argument, but we do assert that many who self-label as progressive are stubborn in this way, and we do claim that the clear majority of progressive leadership fits this bill.

This is a harmless manner of speaking. It saves time and words as long as there is a clear understanding that the claims are statistical and not intended to apply to each group member. As a for instance, take when Chik-fil-A President Dan Cathy said, “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about” we do not assume Cathy means all souls who comprise “our generation”—a group which (by definition) includes Cathy himself—possess an “arrogant attitude.” He only meant the majority of this generation’s leaders are prideful and arrogant.

Proof is had in a letter Boston Mayor, and progressive leader, Tom Menino wrote to Cathy after Menino heard Cathy did not toe the progressive line. Menino admitted, re: the “prideful” charge, “guilty as charged.” But poor Menino, straining his education, has confused the shade of meaning of prideful. So skip to where Menino wrote “I was angry to learn [Chik-fil-A was searching for a site in Boston].” Menino goes on to bluff that Boston won’t allow Cathy to open his business in Boston. Guilty as charged on the arrogance, too.

More arrogance proof was furnished by Chicago alderman Joe Moreno, who also heard Cathy’s words, and who then denied Cathy’s company a building permit. Moreno said, “Chik-fil-A approached me with a paper bag in the usual way, but when I opened it, I was shocked to discover the ‘lettuce’ was real.” Chicago, the most corrupt of American cities, run entirely by Democrats for all of living memory, yet blaming all its ills on Republicans, has its rules that Cathy has not yet learned.

Chik-fil-A’s official values are Christian. It closes on Sunday. Its owner prays. It has touted Biblical passages. The company says that it is their intent to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

Not letting this crisis go to waste, Rahm Emanuel said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.” This is true. Chicago is well known for not treating every person with honor, dignity, and respect. It particularly eschews those values for the poor souls who would buck the machine.

Here Emanuel was speaking in a statistical sense. He did not mean all Chicagoans’ values are opposite of Chik-fil-A’s, but he meant all of its leaders do not hold with treating people with dignity, etc. In particular, almost certainly a majority of Chicago’s black, and a majority of Chicago’s Hispanic, and a majority of Chicago’s immigrant, and probably a just-plain majority of Chicago’s population profess values the same as Chik-fil-A’s, and say the same thing about gay “marriage” as Cathy does.

This has always been an embarrassment for the (mostly white) progressive leadership who when asked about this “disparity” change the subject faster than an cash “application fee” disappears into the dark pockets of a, well, of a Chicago alderman. But no worries: progressive leaders see it as their duty to look after these disadvantaged folks; they’ll bring ’em around to the left point-of-view eventually.

And they’ll do it the Chicago way: by dangling trinkets in front of constituents which can be had by merely signing over their souls, or, if that fails, by good, old-fashioned intimidation and thuggery. Refuse to swear the oath of progressive allegiance? So far we can be thankful the only punishment is banishment.

The Chicago way is the Obama way. It is Mr Obama’s demand, and his value, that all women be given “free” birth-preventing pills and “free” pills which will kill the life which has somehow managed to slip by the first “free” pill. It is his demand, and his value, that those whose religions forbid the use of these controlled poisons (for lack of a better word; they are not drugs to heal or to medicate) be made to abandon their convictions.

Mr Obama, not speaking in the statistical sense, calls this stance a “compromise.”


  1. GoneWithTheWind

    We are watching the Detroit-ization of Chicago. Just like so many cities that have become unsafe and require federal support to simply continue to exist, Chicago is going the way of Detroit. Ironically these city’s officials generally have these same biases/bigotries that Chicago displays. It is almost as though decline and disservice was the goal. I think that what is really going on is much simpler and basic; that is the officials are busy looting the treasury and buying votes, rewarding cronies and enjoying the free ride. The disasterous policies, crumbling infrastructure, unsafe streets and failing nieghborhoods are just one of the side effects.

  2. Briggs


    We have descended into farce: “a gay rights group that plans to protest fast food chain against Chick-Fil-A’s opposition to gay marriage by staging same-sex “kiss-ins” outside franchises.”

  3. txslr

    So Nazis can march in Skokie, but Christians can’t sell chicken sandwiches downtown. Got it.

  4. Sylvain Allard

    Hi Mr. Briggs,

    I’m disappointed by you’re chronic today. Your argument are rather weak.

    Of course everyone is free to think what he wants, the problem is in the action. Obama never demanded that all women be given free pills. Obama just asked that these pills be covered by the insurance and leaving the choice of taken the pill to each individual.

    If a woman want or doesn’t want to take the pill, the choice is hers. Nowhere does it infringe on the freedom of her employer to not agree with it. Freedom is an individual right not a collective one.

    If you are against gay marriage, well no one forces anyone to marry someone from the same sex. Also no where does it say that the church as to marry gay people. Gay marriage are civil and only serve gay couple to access some of the fiscal priviledge accorded to couples.

    The question is: What does it change in your life if two guys or women get married together? Nothing.

    Do you lose any of your individual rights? No.

    What does it change for you that a woman can take the pill, not free but covered by an insurance which is at least in part paid by her?

    As for abortion. When does life begin? at conception the cell cannot live on its own. To be alive someone as to be able to do at least a few things on his own. So before 20-21 weeks a feotus is not viable. at the 21 it might be viable through a lot of medical procedure.

    But again, each woman is smart enough to take care of her own person and her body, her decision about what she wants to do with it.

    Freedom of any individual stops where freedom from any other individual starts. One is not force to agree with gay marriages or abortions, but no one can enforce their will on others.

  5. Briggs

    Sylvain Allard,

    False. Obama mandated that employers pay money to insurance companies so that those insurance companies pay for birth prevention and conception “elimination” pills for those who want them. Catholic employers, many of whom self insure, object due to religious arguments. About Cathy’s actions you already know. Also, same sex “marriage” in Illinois is not legal.

    Question is: should the government be able to force people to violate their religious convictions? Since that is too broad, should the government be able to force Catholic employers to violate their religious beliefs and provide, even if indirectly, abortifacients? And should the government ban a business from building which does not violate state law but does go against the moral opinion of some of the members of that government?

    All your other questions, while easily answered, are irrelevant here.

  6. DAV

    Sylvain Allard, “When does life begin? at conception the cell cannot live on its own.”

    Not to change the subject but did you ever stop to think that argument also could be applied to a 3 day old infant? Both require support and cannot survive on their own. In fact, some children are incapable of that even in their 30s. The truth is: most people couldn’t survive on their own and constantly need the support of others even if they always walk to go to the grocery store. Should your rule apply to them too?

    You need a better definition. That one seems quite weak.

  7. Sylvain Allard


    I will use the definition used by the supreme court of Canada:

    A newborn becomes a person at the moment he can breath by himself. That means once he is his own person.

    Yes, an infant is unable to feed himself but he breath on his own, he doesn’t require tubing to be fed, he doesn’t require medical action to stay alive. The same is not true for the feotus.

  8. Sylvain Allard

    Mr. Biggs

    Obama came to a compromise with Catholic’s authorities on this subject where it is the insurance company that has to offer to cover the pills. They do not all agree but the individual freedom override collective freedom if their is such a thing as collective freedom.

    «Question is: …»

    Freedom rights concern individual, not enterprises so yes the government can tell an employer that they should provide something they object too, to their employe. The individual is the one that need to be protected.

    That a hospital run by a Christian organization which doesn’t approve of birth control pill, doesn’t prevent that hospital to provide access to their employee of said birth control pill.

    And of course, to ban Chick-Fil-A because of what the owner says doesn’t stand the road either. And Moreno’s claim would be overturned by court for sure.

  9. DAV

    “Freedom rights concern individual, not enterprises so yes the government can tell an employer that they should provide something they object too, to their employee.”

    So, if I as an employer have personal objections, my employee’s individual rights trump mine? And if not, and I have a business partner who feels the same as I, our collective individual rights get trumped because we are in a joint venture?

    Are you saying that entering into a contract with another automatically causes one party to lose their rights if the contract involves monetary transactions and the party is on the paying side?

    Interesting concept.

    “One is not force to agree with gay marriages or abortions, but no one can enforce their will on others.”

    Yet, forcing someone to provide or pay for the means to do something they consider reprehensible is not enforcing the will of another? Or, to use your example, what if the issue was that the employer was required to host or pay for the wedding?

  10. Briggs


    First, as to the respelling of my name: I like it and wish the sentiment behind it were true.

    Second, you, sir, are part of the problem: “the government can tell an employer that they should provide something they object too, to their employe. The individual is the one that need to be protected.” What a frightening sentiment. Just because I contract with you to provide a service to me in exchange for a consideration, you believe the government should be able to mandate that I also provide you anything the government decides I should provide you, including those things that violate my most fundamental beliefs.

    Just exactly why, if I am an employer, I should pay (directly or indirectly) for my employee’s birth prevention and birth elimination pills?

  11. Aidan


    Has it occured to you that you are not viable? You may not realise it yet, but that’s the truth. In fact, every single person on the planet is not viable. And as non-viable as I am, I would still prefer to carry on living until I have no choice. Given this, I feel I should extend the courtesy to every creature with 46 chromosomes. Which is why I am against abortion.

  12. GoneWithTheWind

    An employer is an individual. Did you think companies are owned and run by automatons?

    Obama did NOT compromise with catholic authorities; he simply issued another mandate and called it “his” compromise. The Catholic “authorities” still oppose it.

  13. Sylvain Allard


    «So, if I as an employer have personal objections, my employee’s individual rights trump mine? And if not, and I have a business partner who feels the same as I, our collective individual rights get trumped because we are in a joint venture?»

    There are many example where the government forces the employer to comply to defend the right of individuals.

    An employer cannot openly discriminate against an individual based on the race, sex, ages and even sexual orientation. Of course, the proof of being discrminated against is not easy thing to prove. For example, if an employer of a big company doesn’t like women at the work place (other than secretary or janitor) and systematically deny advancement to any women based on her sexe or sexual orientation. If any women can prove she is discriminated upon, then this employer will face a costly lawsuit that he will lose.

    There are now a minimum salary that an employer as to abide by. An employer as to protect the safety of is employees. An employer cannot prevent is employee to unionize. He has to providee vacation pay. After 40-44 hours in a week he has to pay overtime, etc.

    There is a difference between you the individual and you the employer. As an individual, you can be against the pill and no one can force you (at least if you are a women) to take it. But as an employer you do not have to decide for your employee what they can or can’t have access to.

    Not all employer provide health care insurance. And they aren’t forced to provide for it either. But if they do provide for it they can’t choose what it can or cannot cover.

    If an employer was anti-gay, he couldn’t choose an insurance that wouldn’t cover aids.

    I find it interesting how the Church seems to be selective in what they consider moral and immoral. For years there have been priest all over the world that have raped or molested kids, yet these riest were rarely reprimended other than being sent in another locality. How many of these priests were gays themselves.

    Yet, when it comes to women then the moral principle are applied to the extreme limit.

  14. Sylvain Allard

    Mr Briggs,

    First, sorry for the misspell of your name.

    An employer is not forced to provide health insurance to his employee. But if he does he cannot choose to discriminate agaist some of them by refusing to provide care. 99% of all women in the USA have used the pill at some point in their life, including catholic women.

  15. Sylvain Allard


    Any enterprises of any size is run by individual. The enterprise itself is consider a legal person in the fact that it is liable by contract that it signs. It has to obey the law.

    But an enterprise isn’t an individual, it is not its own person. It doesn’t think by itself. It doesn’t walk. It doesn’t breath. You cannot discriminate against it.

  16. Uncle Mike

    Ah yes, another furner who wants to murder unborn Americans and make me pay for it. 70 million since Roe v Wade but that number does not satisfy. How very egalitarian of you, Sylvain.

    And of course Chik-fil-A should be run out of business because the owner expressed his opinion. Man the barricades and sharpen the guillotine. Let the blood run in the gutters. We’ll show business we mean business. After all, slaughter of innocents is the Euro way.

  17. Sylvain Allard

    Uncle mike

    Where did I say that Chick-Fil-A should be run out of business?

    The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to say what he did. People who don’t agree with him have the right to choose to not got eat there. They also have the right to manifest against it if they want to. Just like you have the right to manifest in favor of him if you wish to.

    What they don’t have the right to do is to do him bodily harm to him, to ravage the restaurant or to prevent people to access is business.

    To kill something it first need to be alive. A feotus is not alive until it can breath on its own. Each women is free to decide what she wants to do with her body. You can disagree with it all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that each person can decide what they want to do with their own body and that you have no right to dictate what they want to do with it.

    I guess that I would suggest that you find a woman that agree with you on this issue. If I were with a woman that got pregnant from me, I would hope she would decide to keep it but I would respect her choice to choose.

    As for slaughter of the innocent, the USA is one of the last country that can give any lessons to the world, if you consider the atomic bomb, and slavery/segregation.

  18. GoneWithTheWind

    I think the whole anti-USA rant based on left wing propaganda is getting old and tiresum. Regarding the A-bomb when it was used in Japan it ended the war within weeks. If it had not been used or had not been available Japan would have been invaded and likely the death toll would have been in excess of 4 million Japanese and over a million Americans in the invasion. The bomb saved millions of lives. Regarding slavery the U.S. is the only country in the world that had an enormous civil war to end slavery. Slavery was common hundreds of years ago and got a foothold in the U.S. before there was a U.S. Hundreds of foriegn ships brought slaves to this country in a way not all that different from how illegal drugs are brought here today. 99% of Americans in 1860 were NOT slave owners. But in fact more white slaves were kidnapped and brought to Africa then black slaves were ever brough to the U.S. Slavery still goes on today in Africa and the Middle East. There is no one alive today in the U.S. who ever owned a slave and there is no one alive today in the U.S. who was a slave. So why is this considered a valid arguement to make about Americans today??

  19. Uncle Mike

    Dear Sylvain,

    Unborn children are not alive? Abortion doesn’t kill anything? It’s equivalent to wart removal? How morally convenient for you. You don’t have to feel like a murderer because you have redefined murder. Just like a good Nazi.

    Who, by the way, we had to kill in order to save your sorry asses from cutthroat tyranny. As a matter of fact, America has had to rid your pathetic country of tyrants and protect you from tyrants for 100 years, because you are too stupid to recognize it or to protect yourself. You get all starry-eyed at the thought of slaughtering tens of millions of your fellow humans, and then we have to clean up your mess, again and again.

    We didn’t invent slavery, you did. We put a stop to it. You should be thankful that America has nukes, to deter your sworn enemies who would annihilate you in a minute if we didn’t deter them. They would like nothing better than to turn your miserable sty of a country into a smoking crater, but they don’t because America stands tall.

    So cool your mass murder chatter. It sounds rotten coming from you. Try some gratitude and reverence for life, even if you have to fake it.

  20. Sylvain Allard


    I’m not sure how it is anti-American to say that the USA dropped the A-Bomb or were caught in slavery/segregation. These were dark days for the country and people have to hone up to what their ancestor did and learn from their mistake.
    The A-bomb was not what brought the war to an end. When the first bomb dropped the Japanese were already discussing of surrendering their arms. When the second was dropped they had already decided to surrender. Their army was decimated, they had only a few planes available and their navy was destroyed. There population was in disarray, they had little food left and other means of survival.
    The claim that the bombs have saved millions of life has been debunked. The numbers were not backed up by any serious study. The Japanese didn’t have that many men able to fight. And the 1 million American casualties are actually higher than what the USA actually had in entire war.
    The biggest battles occurred in the East and the numbers of casualties reflect this perfectly. Stalingrad was the biggest battle and the battle for Kursk was the biggest tank battle of the war. These battles had millions of casualties. Japan didn’t have the manpower to offer ¼ of the resistance the Soviets offered to the Germans. They had almost no gas left, almost no electricity, and they were lacking ingredients to make bombs and ammunitions.
    Dropping the A-Bomb had a big strategic advantage to show Russia the US military power. The ending of the war in the Pacific also meant that Russia had no chance to invade Japan; which they would have been able to do before the USA could have been ready.
    Yes, slavery had been a way of life for thousands. The difference the US is the only country who ever wrote it off in a constitution. In 1860, maybe only 1% of the people owned but people from slaves states were ready to defend that right. By 1860, European countries had already outlawed slavery. And after the war, it took 100 years before the black had the same right as whites.
    Sadly, slavery is still present today under the form sex slaves. The traffic of young girls is very alive across the western world.
    I would like you sources about white men sold to Africa as slave, something I never before. I know that there were blacks who were exported to Liberia.

  21. Sylvain Allard

    Dear Uncle Mike,

    I’m not sure where you think i’m from but it seems I am responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world. It is also the first time that anyone ever called me a Nazi. It would be surprising to anyone I know since I’m known for being very tolerant and respectful of other peoples.

    I am also known for being very respectful for life. Although, I eat meat, I must admit that I would be vegetarian if I had to kill for it. Although, I am unable to hunt or even fish, I would not prevent other people of doing it if they are able. You see I’m able to accept that other people may have other point of view than mine. What I don’t appreciate is when people try to impose their point of view on other, like men who don’t have to suffer the consequencies of pregnancy (even under rape) dictating women what they can or can’t do with their own body. Woman are more than smart to know what they want to do with their bodies.

    The vast majority of people living in the USA agree with me that abortion is not murder and that a feotus is not alive

  22. GoneWithTheWind

    You don’t think “the USA is one of the last country that can give any lessons to the world” is anti-American?

    You think defending our country and many other countries (read history and discover what Japan did in the Phillipines and China) is a “mistake”? Really?

    Was slavery wrong? Absolutely. Did my ancestors own slaves? Absolutely not. So tell me again why I should be ashamed. I am not ashamed for anything criminals do and owning slaves was criminal. I can take you ta a cemetary to see my ancestors graves who died in the civil war fighting slavery.

    Please read about the battle of Okinawa to understand what would have happened if Japan was invaded. The Japanese were absolutely committed to fight to the death in the event of invasion. I find it interesting how things get “debunked” by people with an agenda. Another important fact in this discussion is that Russia was just weeks away from invading Western Japan. If Japan didn’t fall when it did then Japan would have endured what Germany did when half of it was occupied by Soviet forces. There is no doubt that the two A-bombs saved millions of lives.

  23. Jonathan D

    GoneWithTheWind, I don’t wish defend most of Sylvain’s arguments, but I think you’re reading too much into the USA comment. It’s one thing to bring up history and single out the US, it’s another to mention those events in response to bizarre comments about the “Euro way”.

  24. Sylvain Allard


    First, is correct in pointing out that you see to much in my comment.

    No, I don’t think defending one’s countries is a mistake. And that of course, the US had to defend itself against the Japenese. But I do think the A-bomb was unnecessary and that it killed or wounded more people than it saved.

    Having studied the history of Japan, Russia, USA, Canada, Jews, WW1 and WW2, I’m well aware of the crime committed by the different nations before, during and after the wars.

    The German and Japanese have to hone up to several atrocities they committed in there past. Just like the US have to hone up to what they did.

    Slavery was put in the constitution by the founding father and it was supported by an important minority who were willing to fight a war to protect it. But even after the end of slavery it took 100 years for the black to have some kind of equality, which is far to be as equal as it should be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *