Jump to content

Talk:Chick-fil-A and LGBT people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.49.153.17 (talk) at 21:37, 6 June 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No actual citations support this claim

"As of April 2018, Chick-fil-A reportedly continues to donate to anti-LGBT groups.[3][4][5][6]"

There are superficially four sources. The first one is an opinion editorial for the New Yorker. The author does not cite any source behind what he says. The second one does not cite any donations made since 2012 except to the Salvation Army, which has no reasons given as to why it should be considered "anti-LBGT". The third comes from Think Progress, which is a self-proclaimed left-wing website (not by any means a WP:RS) which says that the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is anti-LGBT because it is Christian and dares to "spread Christian teachings", including things "the Bible is clear on", like sex being reserved for heterosexual marriage. Summarizing such a viewpoint is described non-neutrally by a non-neutral source as "anti-LGBT"; that does not pass muster for our article. The fourth source is from a Toronto blog that uses the New Yorker opinion piece for its data.

Unless someone cares to opine, I'll be updating it to say that Chick-Fil-A donates to Christian organizations because we have no neutral sources that describe, with evidence, that the groups that CFA donates to are anti-LGBT. WP:NPOV still controls here. I'm waiting for a response. Red Slash 05:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is not an opinion editorial; it's an analysis. Reliable sources are not required to cite their sources. There is no mention of the Salvation Army in the second source (and that source is useless for the material anyway), but The Salvation Army#Criticism by LGBT activists. For this material, Think Porgress is a usable source because we are simply using facts that they report. The CFA's view is that "Any homosexual act constitute an alternative lifestyle acceptable to God.” Obviously, that is an unambiguously anti-LGBT position. The RestoBiz article support the New Yorker article (see WP:USEBYOTHERS. Also, there is consensus that the New Yorker article is reliable for this material: Talk:Chick-fil-A#Untrue statement and/or inaccurate source. NPOV is exactly why this material is in the article. Here are some other supporting sources: [1][2][3]- MrX 🖋 11:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Slash: Poor form to have your Talk topic be entirely about the four sources but then have them in flat, plain text not as hyperlinks. Any way you can back trace to what the four cite refs were and edit your original Topic?? "..donate to anti-LGBT groups.[3][4][5][6]" .." ' Thanks. From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Update to policy changes section

I updated that section with these two recent sources - Chick-fil-A no longer donates to controversial Christian charities after LGBTQ protests and Chick-fil-A To Stop Donations To Charities With Anti-LGBT Views. But I didn't update the lead, personally, I think this information should be in the lead, it's noteworthy and relevant to this article, thought other editors may want to weigh in with their thoughts on inclusion in the lead? Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done - added by another editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Chick-fil-A and LGBT people".(non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy → Chick-fil-A position on LGBT people – (Suggested title-only) Although the original controversy sparked back in 2012 with the Prop 8 in California, the situation (including the article itself) has leaned to what are the views and the position of the restaurant chain. In the article, half of the section "Policy changes", the whole section "United States government", the last paragraph of "Local government", half of the section "Backlash" and the section October 2019 closure of UK location, all, are not related to the original controversy, but to subsequent event that are not necessarily affected by the 2012 criticism of Dan T. Cathy, but the views of the company. A Google test suggest that "same-sex marriage" is less common than "LGBT". © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 05:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as more broad. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLE. The current title describes the contemporaneous reporting on the subject. The proposed title appears to be an attempt to recast the history of the subject in a more favorable light, and is not based on Wikipedia policy at all. Chick-fil-A's position on LGBT people, assuming it exists, is not a notable subject and is not the subject of this article.- MrX 🖋 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, half of the article is not focused on its tilte, which you don't deny. And well, it is pretty obvious that you merely went to oppose, not even reading the "(Suggested title-only)" line, because yes, it is just a suggestion. It doesn't make any sense to split this article into "Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy" (2012) and "Chick-fil-A-LGBT controversy" (2014-2019)—or whatever title suits it—. Instead, an article including both topics (which already does) and a title that reflects it make more sense per WP:BROADCONCEPT than believing that "October 2019 closure of UK location" is somehow related to Dan T. Cathy's 2012 opposition of same-sex marriage. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 00:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to delete or WP:SPINOFF the content unrelated to the 2012 controversy. I didn't add it so I won't defend it. This article should not be a WP:COATRACK. I'm don't think that the more recent mini-controversies merit coverage in an encyclopedia anyway. - MrX 🖋 00:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/refocus, possibly to Chick-fil-A anti-LGBTQ activities or something all inclusive of their corporate and private funding of anti-LGBTQ causes, and corporate non-inclusion of LGBTQ employee protections, etc. Especially as their actions/inaction counters many top companies of their size and influence. Chick-fil-A and Cathy et al, are historically anti-LGBTQ supporting hate groups and funding conversion therapy supporters even after gay marriage has become law, and conversion therapy has been discredited and even outlawed in many U.S. states.
    A robust article giving details of these various funding efforts would be preferable with detailed telling of how they funded these efforts, even at arms length, and even after assuring publicly that they had stopped.
    The anti-gay marriage material is merely the tip of the iceberg. If gays in the military was still a national news item they likely would have been funding that.
    As this, and the main article’s corresponding section are the only place for the material, they should be expanded and put in proper context that this was not a sole issue but a pattern of discrimination that has continued despite public outcry and denials.
    Maybe ask at WP:NPOVN for help if needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to incorrect grammar for proposed title. Perhaps Chick-fil-A LGBT rights controversy would work better.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed new title is not great, but it does seem like this needs to be retitled in some way, perhaps to what Gleeanon409 or Zxcvbnm suggests. (To have separate, overlapping articles on Chick-fil-A opposition to same-sex marriage and Chick-fil-A opposition to other gay rights, as suggested above by the user who would simply move the later content out of this article, seems like the worse approach.) Possibly it would be advisable to temporarily withdraw this RM and workshop what the new title should be. -sche (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion does not find consensus for a particular name, I would suggest a second discussion in which people would be asked to list all the names they would support in order of preference... -sche (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Chick-fil-A and LGBT people" (or "...and LGBT issues"), as another editor proposed, would be a fine title IMO. -sche (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The suggested title takes a longer term view and broadens the discussion. Hopefully it will be supplemented with or at least lead to adjustments in the article. Thus said, the controversy was real and the title was probably good at that time. Now is the time to consider if this article has long term value and how to foster such value! gidonb (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also open to a minor tweak in the target name. Specifically, I would like to see the term "LGBT rights" included. Maybe Chick-fil-A position on LGBT rights or Chick-fil-A and LGBT rights? gidonb (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that adding the Q to LGBT should be discussed at the category root and, after agreed, added to all subcategories. That said, it can already be added to a subcategory where specifically relevant. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and Chick-fil-A anti-LGBTQ activities gets us closer to the mark. I think “controversies” isn’t helping as people will argue everything has to specifically be a controversy. “LGBT rights” has a similar issue in that then becomes the argument, what is/isn’t a right and who gets to decide.

    I think the title needs to encompass how their animosity towards LGBTQ people also extends to their lack of LGBTQ employee protections seen at similar companies of their workforce size.

    If the company makes a miraculous turnaround the name can change from “anti-LGBTQ activities” to “LGBTQ activities”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits to the lead which wrongly interpret sources

Some of the recent edits to the lead seem intend to change the article subject to fit a rewritten history. We need to adhere to what sources actually say. For example, there was no "relationship" between LGBT people and Chick-fil-a. CFA donated to anti-gay charities and its CEO overtly spoke out against LGBT rights. - MrX 🖋 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, sorry, but where in any of my edits or the initial edits by the IP was there any "relationship" between LGBT people and CFA written about? (The "initial outcomes" part in the third paragraph, however, is subtly, but certainly original research; my mistake to restore that) Zingarese talk · contribs 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, I also don't agree that "relationship" constitutes a rewritten history. This article is about "Chick-fil-A and LGBT people" and, (sorry to break out a definition, I really don't mean it as an aggressive move, just so you're understanding my intent) "the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected." It's not necessarily a back-and-forth dialogue, it's just how the two are related, which is the subject of the article. The Chick-fil-A CEO commenting on same-sex marriage and the resulting controversy describes how the concept are related, or their relationship. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my suggested lede, based off of my final edit before this discussion was started:

The international fast food restaurant Chik-fil-A and LGBT people have had a contentious relationship,[1] largely starting after a series of public comments made in June 2012 by Chick-fil-A's chief operating officer Dan T. Cathy opposing same-sex marriage. Further issues followed reports that Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, the S. Truett Cathy-operated WinShape Foundation, had donated millions of dollars to organizations seen by LGBT activists as hostile to LGBT rights. Activists called for protests and boycotts, while supporters of the restaurant chain and opponents of same-sex marriage ate there in support of the restaurant. National political figures both for and against the actions spoke out and some business partners severed ties with the chain.

This gets the title into it without strange wordsmithing and maintains the initial incident (June 2012 comments) description. "Contentious relationship" is used in many articles to describe the interaction between Chick-fil-A and LGBT people, such as in this article, which I added as a citation in the lede to make sure there isn't any WP:NOR. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Garfield, Leanna. "Pro-LGBTQ-rights consumers vow to boycott Chick-fil-A after it announces it's opening in Toronto — here's why the fast-food chain is so controversial". Business Insider. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
This article is about CFA donating to anti-gay organizations and its principal speaking out against LGBT rights. An organizations cannot have a relationship with an undefined quantity of LGBT people. It is improper to shoehorn the awkward title of the article into the well-established subject of the article—CFA's stance on LGBT rights. In fact, it's unnecessary to repeat the article title in the lead at all, which seems to be the driver of this particular edit. It is very wrong to recast this subject as some failing on the part of LGBT people, because that is certainly not how the bulk of reliable sources treat the subject. We can certainly talk about the extent to which CFA's stance evolved, but let's not pretend this is a disagreement between peers. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about CFA’s ongoing anti-LGBTQ activities towards consumers and employees broadly including: its funding anti-LGBTQ organizations, and its denying worker rights that other corporations of comparable stature do to LGBTQ employees. I agree the title may be still a problem. But the underlying issue remains CFA corporate stance of supporting homophobic values. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still a wiki article and it should always be edited in a neutral point of view ~ no matter how you feel about CFA or any group or corporation. ~mitch~ (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised about the above move and this is also part of the issue. One doesn't need to be LGBT to have an opinion about this and the topic is actually about religious political activism, not "this and that"... —PaleoNeonate – 13:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page appears to primarily concern the 2012 protests and boycott of Chik-fil-a due to the founders/corporate support of traditional Christian marriage practices. The headline says it concerns all LGBT people in relation to Chik-fil-a, which is hardly supported by the article or by reality. It also has an extraordinary amount of exposition, down to fine details, about the controversy that is unnecessary and sometimes duplicative of the main Chik-fil-a Wikipedia page, such as the airports controversy. In short, this page is uncalled for and polemical, and appears to violate NPOV and numerous parts of WWIN.

At a bare minimum the title needs to be changed; strong consideration should be given as to how to pare it down to a reasonable size and (the best course of action) merging it with the corresponding section on the main Chik-fil-a page, and deleting this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chick-fil-A_and_LGBT_people&oldid=1091869275"