Remember the furor stirred up by — to borrow the New Yorker’s description — ”Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City?”
Now the culture war over the fast-growing chicken-sandwich chain has gone international.
To England, to be precise.
The New York Times reports:
Just days after Chick-fil-A’s first restaurant in the United Kingdom opened and amid protests by activists about the company’s opposition to same-sex marriage, the chain said on Saturday it will close the site in six months.
The Oracle, the shopping mall where the restaurant leases space, told the BBC it would not allow Chick-fil-A to stay beyond its “initial six-month pilot period” and that it was the “right thing to do” after a call to boycott the chain by Reading Pride, a local lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender advocacy group.
Chick-fil-A said it had planned to stay for a limited time anyway.
“We have been very pleased with the lines since opening Oct. 10 and are grateful for customer response to our food and our approach to customer service,” the company said on Saturday. “We mutually agreed to a six-month lease with the Oracle Mall in Reading as part of a longer term strategy for us as we look to expand our international presence.”
What’s the big deal over Chick-fil-A anyway (besides the amazing chicken biscuits and sandwiches)?
The Times offers this background:
The statement noted that Dan T. Cathy, the company’s chairman and chief executive, was quoted in 2012 saying that Chick-fil-A believed in the “biblical definition of the family unit.”
Mr. Cathy’s comments came after news reports revealed that the company’s foundation had donated money to groups in the United States working to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Over at the Washington Post, this is the context given:
The group cited infamous comments Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy made in 2012 about believing in the “biblical definition of the family unit.” It also pointed to the company’s donations to organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which says in its statement of faith that marriage is “exclusively the union of one man and one woman.”
So basically, the “infamous” comment was that Cathy believes in 2,000 years of traditional biblical teaching and doctrine, and the company has given to groups — including the Fellowship of Christian Athletes! — that share that belief. It seems that both the Times and the Post could do a better job of explaining that.
Also, both newspapers could have noted the ongoing war over Chick-fil-A in San Antonio, where the city was sued over preventing the chain from opening at the airport.
As reported by the Texas Tribune, five area residents filed a lawsuit over San Antonio’s refusal to allow Chick-fil-A, citing “state legislation passed this year that outlaws government retaliation based on ‘membership in and support to religious organizations.’” I have no idea whether such laws exists in England, but it would be interesting to know whether the English mall is on solid legal footing. Asking such a question, of course, would require the Times and Post to engage in actual journalism instead of performing stenography on behalf of the protesters aligned with both papers’ editorial leanings.
Finally, if both newspapers wanted to report the on-the-ground situation instead of simply the protesters’ emailed talking points, why not send a reporter to the mall? Chick-fil-A claims there are lines at the restaurant — is that true?
If so, what do the people in line say? Do they care about Chick-fil-A’s politics? Do they have religious beliefs for or against same-sex marriage? Or are they simply hungry and eager to devour an amazing melding of bun, pickles and chicken?
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is more than one side of the story, as one gay-rights supporter argued after last year’s brouhaha over the New Yorker piece.