Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash
“We made multi-year commitments to both organizations and we fulfilled those obligations in 2018,” a representative for Chick-fil-A said, saying the chain will now focus its charitable donations on “education, homelessness and hunger.” - National Review
- 1 view
Have they said anywhere that they have stopped donations to these organizations because of LGBTQ pressure or is this just something that is being assumed? I agree that they are under no obligation to donate to anyone (and shouldn’t from my perspective) but could it be that they just wanted to support something else? I truly don’t know what their motivation is or if perhaps these specific organizations were the issue. I have never been to a CFA but I hope to try them sometime.
” … in the future they are not going to ignore any types of organizations.” … except those that support Biblical family principles. For the sake of argument, assume CFA’s change is the “right one”. CFA itself connected the change to problems it encounters when donating to organizations that do not support homosexuality, etc. Therefore, the change. Whether the “change” is right or not, feel free to debate it. Yet CFA admits that future business expansion in certain markets has been hurt by its open support of traditional family/marriage. Therefore, the change. CFA can try to minimize the stink of the change with noble-sounding words and phrases, but the reality is that it caved to the culture.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Josh: Here is the link to the article - https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/retail/exclusive-amid-global-expan…
Read between the lines. CFA’s words are “business talk” for “contributions to pro-traditional family organizations have hurt our growth, so we will ‘clarify’ our donation model”. Blunt Translation: “We caved to years of pressure.” I give them credit for their history of resisting the pressure.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I don’t care because …
- I don’t expect businesses to support the church
- I do business with business because of their product or service meeting my needs
- I’ve eaten at CFA twice: Once on business (somewhere, I forgot) and once somewhere on the highway (maybe in KY). It’s good. There is no CFA convenient to me so don’t eat there
- My bank supports LBTQ … don’t care! Great service & website
- I’m a big Apple fan (2 IPhones, 2 IPads, 3 Macbooks, & Watch). Apple supports LBTQ … don’t care! Great service & products
So I just don’t care!
I agree. I don’t care, either. I’ve eaten there twice.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Here is what is really lop-sided: companies that give to left-promoting agenda charities ignore concerns about being political or PUSHING the LGBT agenda.
It is a one way street. If google and amazon took the same position as Chick-fil-a is doing, it wouldn’t be so bad.
"The Midrash Detective"
Very disturbing that some “don’t care”. Doesn’t matter whether you like CFA’s food or not, eat at CFA or not. A major business with a history of open support for pro-traditional [Biblical] marriage is now changing its policy in order not to offend those promoting the LBGT (add other letters as you wish) agenda and in order to improve the possibility of opening stores in certain markets. This issue is much bigger than whether you like CFA’s chicken.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
My chief question regarding CFA is whether there is more to their need to support FCA and SA beyond publicity; that the same motivations for supporting them are the ones that enable their servant culture and reputation for good service.
That said, it strikes me that at some point, we’re going to start seeing sufficient evidence of the end results of this, that, and the other movement to start saying “look what you’re doing to these people. You think you’re benefiting them by supporting their charitable organizations, but look at the mess they’re leaving behind. You are hurting the very people you purport to help.”
Now of course, that presumes that “we” have our act together in a way that many today would suggest we don’t, “fix your own house first” and all that, but “if”, then such a move is plausible.
Regarding the SA specifically, it strikes me that they might be far better off if they were not constrained by the dollars and desires of the secularists, too. Most here would agree—in various terms—that they’ve been on the “evangelical” side for a while, leaning into “almost not evangelical”, and I would have to guess that pressure from corporate and government donors is not helpful in keeping them somewhat orthodox.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It’s a chicken fast-food restaurant …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[WallyMorris]Josh: Here is the link to the article - https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/retail/exclusive-amid-global-expans…
Read between the lines. CFA’s words are “business talk” for “contributions to pro-traditional family organizations have hurt our growth, so we will ‘clarify’ our donation model”. Blunt Translation: “We caved to years of pressure.” I give them credit for their history of resisting the pressure.
This is a discredited article. They are quoting CFA when CFA never said these things.
I don’t do a lot of fast food. However, I prefer CFA to anything else along that line. I have always admired the entire culture of their stores. The well-mannered employees, the clean facilities, the choice to close on Sunday, and certainly the food.
Most of us probably remember the first round of criticism from the gay lobby several years ago. I thought at the time that Dan Cathey was, in a measure, playing both sides of the fence. It concerned me more that in the aftermath of the controversy he chose to publicize his presence at the wedding of two males. Big disappointment!
Anyway, we will likely see more changes in the future. While the adjustments may displease me I doubt it would keep me out of their stores or their famously efficient drive-through line.
[WallyMorris]Very disturbing that some “don’t care”. Doesn’t matter whether you like CFA’s food or not, eat at CFA or not. A major business with a history of open support for pro-traditional [Biblical] marriage is now changing its policy in order not to offend those promoting the LBGT (add other letters as you wish) agenda and in order to improve the possibility of opening stores in certain markets. This issue is much bigger than whether you like CFA’s chicken.
There’s a lot to ‘get exercised’ about … for me this is NOT one of them.
Discredited article? Please provide documentation.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Chick-fil-A Concedes: Under political pressure, the chicken chain cuts off the Salvation Army.
It’s hard to blame Chick-fil-A. The company exists to serve chicken sandwiches and waffle fries, not to wage political battles over sexual morality, and its corporate decision-makers are free to give whatever they want to whomever they please. Still, it’s disappointing to see the left’s cultural imperialists succeed in strong-arming a company that has committed no offense—and to see Chick-fil-A implicitly conceding that the charitable organizations to which it has donated are guilty of the sins their unreasoning critics attribute to them.
We suspect Chick-fil-A’s despisers will be emboldened rather than satisfied, and don’t be surprised to hear demands that the company must now support causes the left holds dear. All in the name of tolerance and diversity.
Discussion