Chick-fil-A

I think what would be really nice to know is if their food tastes good, and is it reasonably priced (unlike everything else on campus)?

The attached email was sent out addressing various concerns.

The important part:
"...The Chick-fil-A at Western will be operated by Sodexo, much as they operate other dining facilities on campus. Sodexo will hire, train and supervise the employees at the Chick-fil-A, and these employees will fall under Sodexo's broad and very explicit policies regarding discrimination in the workplace. That includes its diversity and equal opportunity policies, which affirm that Sodexo will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

As the chair for Western's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Concerns Committee, I would like to share the LGBTCC's committee statement regarding Chick-fil-A for consideration.  To summarize, members of the LGBTCC believe Chick-fil-A's presence on our campus and our investment in it undermines the values of inclusion and support of diversity on our campus.

Western has a strong commitment to encourage diversity and to oppose discrimination. The university respects an individual's right to hold beliefs that might be different from our own as well as to sponsor or affiliate with any organization as long as such affiliation does not result in discrimination. Members of the LGBTCC believe that discrimination does occur through Chick-fil-A's pattern of corporate partnerships with anti-gay and homophobic individuals / events / organizations, which assists in the promotion of oppressive practices, inaccurate informaiton, and anti-gay rhethoric. Subsequently, the LGBTCC recommended to Western's Executive Dining Committee to not host a Chick-fil-A outlet on campus.

There is a panel discussion tonight (Thursday, 10/16) at 7pm in VU 565 that is free and open to the public, and sponsored by Associated Students offices to dialogue on the multiple perspectives on this issue.  Please refer to the LGBTCC Summary Statement attachment for more details on the committee's process and findings, and I encourage you to attend the forum for more information. Thank you, Ronna B.

i understand LGBTCC's position about chick-fil-A, however i think getting rid of a profitable franchise for us and possibly chick-fil-a is not a good idea because you disagree with the CEO's of chick-fil-a. no one can control what people think, or how they feel, but you can control whether or not how they feel and what they think impacts other people (especially in the work force) by having the chick-fil-a name here on campus i dont think brings those negative thoughts or feelings to campus. especially as our franchise is totally separate from chick-fil-a's headquarters. Sodexho supplies the food, the cooks. chick-fil-a just supplies the recipes and technique. i do not believe that you should totally deny a business based on a few claims on a few leaders.

to me, it is like hating the citizens of a country because you do not believe in the leaders ideas. people still do it, but i think it is wrong. some countries hate American's because of our leaders in government, i dont think our leaders in government represent who i am as a person and what i think and believe. so i dont think we should do that to chick-fil-a here on campus. maybe hate the leaders but dont hate our small little branch.
 

I agree with Lloyd on this issue. If Western is about equality, shouldn't that be applied to chick-fil-a? Don't misininterpret that as my support for chick-fil-a. I have chosen to boycott the company myself, and when the issue arises, I express my concern for the companies known policies. However, the choice must remain the individuals. If we start removing corporations that have leaders with personal views we do not agree with, I believe it would be equal to using the same line of thinking which we fundamentally agree is unacceptable. 

I agree with Lloyd - there are plenty of CEO's and companies who probably support things that I would be disappointed to know my money was going to support, but denying access to the products the company makes based on the belief of one person who happens to be in charge doesn't make sense.  For example, a little over a year ago there was a big controversy in my hometown over Starbucks and its support of Planned Parenthood.  (see link --http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mbarber/070521) I think it is ridiculous to no longer purchase from a certain company based on where they send money.  Also, nobody makes a big deal about allowing the LGBT express themselves regardless of if we agree or disagree with their lifestyle, we should all respect the decision as individuals to make our own choices.

I think it's fine if WWU students want to boycott or otherwise avoid Chik-Fil-A.  Everyone has the freedom and right to do that.

But the problem I'm finding in this debate is the desire to remove Chik-Fil-A from campus.  This does not speak of "diversity" and "acceptance" to me.  When one speaks of removing Chik-Fil-A, I see that as an ultimatum - rather than being accepting others' opinions, it's a covenient way to remove someone who has different beliefs.

Vegetarians won't eat at Chik-Fil-A.  If LGBTA members don't want to eat at Chik-Fil-A, that's their choice - I can understand if they don't want their money to support something that they disagree with.  But let's practice what we preach here, yah? Let's tolerate diversity, cherish those with different opinions, and not exclude those who we have disagreements with.

The problem is not that the CEO of Chick-fil-a has alternative views, no matter how offensive, the problem is how he uses his and his company's profits to support radical, discriminatory organizations. Focus on the family and focus action promote and lobby for discriminatory legislation against homosexuals, women, and other socially progressive viewpoints. If they simply disagreed, then this controversy wouldn’t exist. It’s the fact that they actively lobby for discriminatory laws, the disenfranchising and removal of civil rights that’s completely incompatible with any mission to promote diversity.

Focus on the family also runs a disastrously devastating “ex-gay” program. Imagine the scenario: your parents, with the ill informed guise of “fixing” you send you to a program where you’re constantly told that a part of you that you cannot change is evil. You’re made to hate yourself, kept from the outside world for weeks or months at a time. If you haven’t read it, I STRONGLY encourage you to read this article from the New York Times about the exact same organization run by Focus On The Family which Chick-fil-a, and by extension University Dining (Sodexho), and by extension Western, and by extension you, fund.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E4DA1E3DF934A25754C0A...

I’ll quickly mention that since the inclusion of Chick-fil-a, I have stopped eating anywhere on campus except for vendor’s row. Reading the New York Times article, it’s repulsive to imagine my money supporting that abuse.
 

  It's conditioned Nuerosis, people look at each other and cannot distinctly tell if they are gay or not, because of this they begin to develop neurotic symptoms and in some instances act aggresively. Focus on the Family is a very large example of this. While they apparently (according to an opinion article) have some nice things about them, I tend to liken it to modern day gangs. "They provide in many cases an astounding level of companionship, but that's hardly reason enough to overlook the acts of terror that in many cases they also cause."

  Anyone who is willing to befall the effects of Conditioned Neurosis doesn't deserve to be in a position of power, be it a CEO, or a politician. We have far too many people with limited understanding of the world attempting to dictate how the world runs. There was an episode of South Park devoted to the "Un-gay" camps thing. It's all incredibly ridiculous.

  I personally feel that what people need to do is get involved in politics, there are FAR more intelligent scholars than there are foolish zealots. It's just that zealots are generally more willing to be active over their beliefs. It's completely illogical as well. If Earth is just the staging ground for access to heaven then why worry about homosexuality? You won't be seeing these people in Heaven (by definition apparently) so why even bother? You live a good life and you go to heaven, nonbelievers go to hell, and the cycle begins again. Sort of like when Jehova's Witnesses come to my door attempting to spread the word. There are apparently limited seats in their afterlife, why tell anyone about it? If any of you and I are going on the same flight to somewhere nice and I find out that there is only one seat left and first come first serve...I'm sorry but you aren't finding out. (I need a vacation ;).)

  You will never be able to change the Focus on the Family people, I tend to find that when you confront these people even with friendly debate they'll break down into incomprehensible rambling that starts circling around and devouring itself until any semblance of logic is lost in this endless cannibalistic rant.

  Homosexuality has been around since Greek times, it was only with the entrance of militant faith that it became an object of fear and loathing. I will for as long as I live never understand what the big hubbub is or how it affects anyone. Because frankly I've 'never' seen anyone who is afraid of gay people "wanting to do them" ever having the looks to justify the fear. I like to think I know who I'd try and date if I was gay, and its never these people. To me its just a petty excuse to attack someone, unfortunately its one of the excuses that is still acceptable.

  For instance if you look at WECU's current rules for discrimination (at least the paper in the mall) you will find that sexual orientation is not on their list of things protected for home loans. Why? Well because who would want people who are statistically more likely to stay in a stable relationship, less likely to be caught in crime, and for that matter less likely to do anything that will lessen their homes value getting a loan? That's just bad business if you ask me *sarcasm*.

  Keep fighting for logical treatment, if I ever get the time and funds to run for Governor I'll definately do my part to help educate people on the foolishness of Bigotry in any form. Perhaps even educate them on why they have the feelings in the first place (I highly suggest reading up on conditioned neurosis...it explains quite a few things humans do).

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?experimental+neurosis

   Note: Apparently it is called experimental neurosis, since it is generally done in conditioning trials I guess I misnomered it. Oh well. I've provided a quick definition, I expect anyone interested to go search for more information. Have a good one.

I can only speak for my personal convictions here but I choose to not support Chick-fil-A for many reasons. I personally do not believe that refusing to buy from a company because of the choices they make is discrimination, however I do believe that promoting legislation that denies basic rights to human beings not because of a choice but because of a single facet of their humanity is discrimination.

The fact that the name of this company is in our student union building where all of us should feel welcome seems like a huge setback to what many groups on campus are trying to overcome. People who say that college campuses are extremely accepting and "liberal" should look at the terrible things that have been happening 6 hours away at WSU. Having a Chick-fil-A on campus is another reminder to me that not all of us are accepted for who we are even at such an amazing place as Western.

I currently have to run to chem lab but I hope that as a community we can come to some sort of consensus about what should be done.

My questions is this:

Is Chik-fil-a any more profitable than the burrito/wrap place that used to be there?

I freaking loved that place.

you know, i am not sure. but i do know every time i walk in the VU EVERYONE i see has chick fil-a food. and with the burrito wrap i didnt see everyone eating it.

i didnt care much for the burritos i thought they werent that amazing. but to each their own.

i am sure campus has records of sales and stuff, i heard they are doing very well, better than projected. but i am not sure if that is true. i do not eat there as i limit my fast food intake. and deep fried foods. but others seem to enjoy it.

Actually I'm really disappointed with their chicken sandwiches.  I was expecting more.  It's just chicken, a pickle, and a bun.  I was looking forward to something more... complete?

But that's not the issue. And homosexuality is not the issue, either.  We've covered and talked over a lot of different things around the actual issue without really discussing what we think WWU's role in the presence of Chik-fil-A is.  What is WWU's mission statement?  What about the Viking Union's mission statement?  And how should we interpret these in the decision-making process of what to do with Chik-fil-A?

I agree with Lloyd. Just because the CEO's are discriminative, doesn't mean the people working there are or anything.

Plus Chick-Fil-A is delectable.

It is understandable to not want to promote a business that does not have the best hiring practices or that discriminates against anyone. However it is true that Sodexo will do the hiring and they do agree to uphold the Western ideals. Not to mention what better way to stick it to a company than to use their business and hire whomever we want regardless of their horrible ideas of discrimination. We have the ability to change one business and that is better than none.

The point is, correct me if I'm wrong, a portion of the money paid to the Chick-Fil-A franchise on-campus WILL go to the main company, which will continue to support anti-gay efforts. Having the Chick-Fil-A on campus is sending out a message along the lines of, "We don't mind that we're giving our money to efforts of discrimination." It's not about who they hire, it's not about using their business, it's not that we "hate" the people that work there; I don't want our campus to be a supporter of anti-gay movements. Sure, I can choose not to buy food there, but they're still conveniently providing the option and even encouraging students to buy from the company. No one is going to change the business, and not discriminating at this particular franchise isn't going to make a difference in where the money ultimately goes.

Reading through the posts, I couldn't help but wonder what we would replace Chik-fil-A with if the campus community responded to and recognized the implied discrimination it brings to our campus.What about the student-run co-op that is being proposed? Would this be a viable alternative? I don't know much about the project but have heard that the co-op aims at providing an inclusive environment while selling food that is organic and good for you. I feel that the student leaders for the co-op should team up with other student run organizations (Ethnic Student Center, LGBTA, etc.) to create a space free from the implied discrimination that comes from the Chik-fil-A franchise.

Would we rather have an inclusive and comfortable space for all members of our campus community or a tasty chicken sandwich?

Is there a compromise or middle ground?

A community co-op sounds like a great idea, I really like your idea about getting co-op organizers to work with other minority groups on campus to create an environment that can be supportive of everyone, not just one particular group however noble their cause. It seems like we wouldn't even have to sacrifice a tasty chicken sandwich if we can get good locally grown food, that would be a lot better than deep fried chicken mulch. I've seen that they have a booth out in red square on wednesday's and thursday's to talk about their program and I was told they have a web site as well. It would be a lot of work, but it definately seems like something worth looking into.

Oh, I just found their website, it is www.wwucoop.org and they also have a wiki space which is wwucoop.wikispace.com

I'd like to steer the dialogue in a different direction: corporate interests.

Implied discrimination notwithstanding (and not trivialized by any means), how do we feel about there being a faceless corporate franchise in our main hub of student activity? Would our challenges be driven by different motives if this was a McDonalds? So, Chik-fil-a isn't a recognized brand in the Northwest. The lack of immediate recognition allows a corporation like this to slide right in without the immediate backlash associated with an established, ubiquitous entity like McDonalds or Taco Bell.
However, Chik-fil-a (sp.?) IS a ubiquitous corporate entity. It IS a mega-corporate franchise concerned not with our local economy, community, or cultural values. What does this say about Western that the administration and finance committee would so blatantly place increased capital above a locally established, locally run, and locally beneficial co-operative or business? What does it say that Sodexho provides the food and the training?
Doesn't this mean that all of those stale chicken patties in the locked dumpsters outside of the VU are essentially the same as those in the foil wrappers in the Viking Commons? So not only does Western value a big business monopoly(and more corporate sponsorship, meaning more net gain), but they also place low food quality and a minimum of variety and healthy alternatives above the positive type of statement that a liberal arts school in an environmentally conscious region should be making.
As the student body, does this choice represent you? Do all of the students with Chick-fil-a foil wrappers slimed over with grease understand the implications of buying into the product?
I respect the concerns of the LGBT community, but beyond abstract ideology among the upper tier members of a corporate structure, why have we even allowed a HUGE corporation (and it's questionable ethical makeup) to set up shop in our core?
I'm very curious about responses here. Our educational institution should not only have our health and basic rights in mind, but it should refrain at all costs (even if those costs are millions in the trust) representing the same flawed corporate structure we're supposed to be learning how to subvert.
I pay my tuition. I overextend on textbooks and campus privileges I never use. Myself, and many others, will be heavily in debt for the foreseeable future. All of this endless tithing to the Gods of academia and they give us a glorified dorm-food-franchise as our campus dining option? Come on!
Can I be enraged? Am I off-base?

I think it's very interesting how much buzz there seems to be about the Chick-fil-A on campus.
Earlier I read the e-mail sent out by the University pertaining to the committee looking into a Chick-fil-A coming to campus and I was shocked to find the few numbers of discrimination cases as investigated by the attorney general. For such a large cooperation their record seems fairly impressive and their business practices well respectable and unworthy of much disapproval. It seems that to bar a business from coming to school based solely on the values of their leaders would be the same as restricting a club based on the values of their leaders. I feel this is highly contrary to the principles of this University that is said to actively promote diversity and inclusion. It seems hypocritical that a club that so diligently fights for acceptance and inclusion of their beliefs that may differ from others would so blatantly refuse and discriminate against another group because of a difference of perspective. In no way does anyone have to eat at Chick-fil-A if they don’t want to and in no way have I heard that any people have been discriminated against by Chick-fil-A since it has come to campus, especially since it is all operated under Sodexo. It is oppression to NOT allow a company that has been determined by a panel as being suitable for our campus just because of different beliefs that individuals may have, especially if they do not result in unjust or highly questionable behavior. My understanding of groups that Chick-fil-A may support like Focus on the Family is that they are not against gays (though radical right-wing activists may be) but rather they are just promoting and trying to support the traditional family that they may have grown up in. In the same way it would be highly inaccurate to say that the LGBT hates or is against married heterosexual couples but rather more accurately they are just promoting the virtues of gay, bisexual, and people of transgender.

Only by allowing groups with different ideals can our community truly be diverse and accepting. There may be a problem that we don’t want to support large corporations that may seem to support oppression in being “anti-gay” but what about those that are proven to be against people everywhere in the way of fair wages, labor practices, and things like that? By simply paying our taxes we are supporting many things that each of us individually might have a problem supporting based on our values. The problem is much bigger than one can grasp and I don’t think the answer is limiting options that one can support based on one groups perspective but rather individually deciding what to do and how what we do effects others. Personally I think that Chick-fil-A’s chicken nuggets are rather tasty and I am glad they are available to those (which seems to be a lot of people) who like to eat them. I don’t think that people should have to feel bad about eating them either. Also I don’t think it’s fair to say that in having such an option students are against people of different sexual orientations just like they aren’t necessarily against vegetarians though they’re eating meat. It seems like a big chicken joint should be far more offensive and seem more discriminatory against vegetarians or vegans and it is surprising that I didn’t get a memo about a committee of their concerns.
 

diversity? mega-corporation? i didn't think that accepting others meant accepting a yolk.

I don't think you're off base at all.  Other university students have driven Sodexho off their campuses and pressured them to lesson some of their investments in prisons (they still feed, prisoners, however).  As undergrads, students learn that corporations and capitalism rely on the exploitation of poor people in our communities and abroad and we learn that the struggles of the LGBT community is linked to the struggles of workers.  And by being university students, especially in the dorms, we're contracted to give money to a very exploitive corporation.  Western students can resist and force Sodexho off campus.  We have the student co-op, a viable replacement that will keep profits in our community.

For folks who think Sodexho is just peachy, check out CorpWatch's page.

Their food was cold and nasty when I ate their. I was really dissappointed, so I wouldn't recommend eating there. I think w should replace chik-fil-a with taco bell!

Whatever happens, I just think they should use something other than peanut oil. I have a peanut and nut allergy (they are sepreate), I felt totally alienated, especially when I am paying for it too. Someone told me that they weren't going to use canola oil because it wasn't as healthy for everyone. Guess what? If it's healthy for most and deadly for some, it's not better- in fact, I think it's worse. Did you know that the most common allergy on campus is nuts/peanuts?

I have enough trouble navigating poorly made and insufficient labels and avoiding that trip to the ER,

It is true. We don't have to agree with someone in a position of great power but I don't think shoving millions of dollars at them is a great idea either...because you know...money gets things done.

But hey what do I know. When is the last time giving a bunch of money to someone with skewed views ever had reprocussions?

PS. No I don't think this branch alone is going to make them millions. Just making the point that "I like their product just not what they spend their money on." is not a good way to live your life :).

I mean if I made beautiful clothes but spent the profits on a baby fighting ring would you feel ok with buying my clothes? Would it be more okay if one of my clothing stores was branched in your local college book store with friendly employees? I mean I'm still paying to have babies fight to the death with the money.

All I know is that it is very tasty. Never had it before this year, but it is SO VERY TASTY.. I AM ADDICTED!!!

I like your idea, but I think midgets fighting to the death would be more entertaining.

Just a suggestion...

(It's supposed to be funny, guys... chill)
 

i like how you assume my position is that i enjoy the food they make- when in fact i am aginst it. but my post wasnt about my personal posistion on them.

i just think if the majority of people enjoy their food, and in turn increases revenue for our campus then i think it should stay, i dont feel personally attacked by having chick fil a here. i just ignore them.

they are not up to my nutrition standards so i choose not to eat there. i just want people to think about why they choose to eat there, or not. not to just jump on a bandwagon and try to break something down without thinking of the alternative side to things

but if you were making clothes and in your off time you made babies fight each other i dont think you would be in business very long as i am sure that is illegal. i think your example is too exreme for this case. but i would try to avoid buying your clothes.

Well, the alternative side to things is letting them stay; people not seeing that side of things isn't an issue. People want Chick-Fil-A gone BECAUSE they see the other side of things.

On a seperate note, in an "official statement of purpose," Chick-Fil-A stated that their goal was "to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." Now, this is okay for a business, of course, and I'd say that it's even commendable that it's part of their mission to positively influence people. But when "glorify[ing] God" includes supporting organizations that discriminate against other beliefs and lifestyles, they're entering a not-so-positive area. But still, they're a business, and they can (to an extent and within the law) do what they want. On campus, however, I think is a bit different. Of course we can still choose not to eat there, but their mere presence on campus just has some negative connotations in and of itself. I can't personally speak for the LGBT community, but from what I've read, they're not happy with Chick-Fil-A's presence on campus.

Also, the choice to bring Chick-Fil-A to Western, so I've read, was influenced by its "unique"ness. Although I've never seen one anywhere else, more-or-less generic fast-food chicken doesn't seem very "unique" to me. That by itself isn't a very good reason to not have them, though; I love the on-campus Pizza Hut. : )

Anyways, I'm just babbling now, so in conclusion: I don't like them or their food ("them" meaning the company's leaders, not its campus employees), I won't go there, I urge others to do the same, but we'll probably have to deal with it I think.

Here's what bothers me about this whole thing:

I understand and respect our right to boycott, and I respect every human regardless of their sexual orientation. 

HOWEVER, if we are to be truly open-minded and respecful of others, we must follow the golden rule.  By boycotting the business because of the owners religious preference and sexual orientation, we are no better than the people who refuse to give their money to businesses owned by minorities and members of the LGBT community.  It's reverse discrimination, if you will.  

While it is true, that straight, Catholic white men have not been repressed and ostracized the way miniorities have, the only way to end the hateful discrimination is to break the cycle all together.  Regardless of how stongly disagree with the owners beliefs, the act of us boycotting and preaching against his businesses presence is just as closed-minded.

What about other local Bellingham businesses?  Would we no longer eat at a local chinese or indian restaraunt, if we found out that the owners religion does not condone homosexuality?  I don't think so.....

 THANK YOU!

I'm gay.

I eat there.

Just because someone is Christian, and conservative doesn't mean they're actively out to get us.  Chick-Fil-A employs homosexuals and has one of the lowet turnover rates of any fast food chain... they're obviously not that bad.

If you people are so worried about bad companies then quit ordering Dominoes Pizza and buying all your lame knock off looks at Urban outfitters... which is one of the LEAST gay friendly companies in the US right now.

I would cream my jeans if more fresh local healthy food was available on campus at affordable prices.

I am not for or against sedexo or chick fil a or whatever, and I think that the viking commons is heaven for a hungry soul... but oh how I long for fresh delicious exotic fruits, sweet baked tofu, free range chicken, vegan baked goods...

I would freakin live if there was a coop on campus...  

Free range chicken is still chicken. Why add the "free range" part in there?

But I am TOTALLY with you on the other foods you mentioned--tofu on campus is pretty lackin'.

You don't think humane, sustainable meats are acceptable? Sorry, I am not vegetarian. I sort of wish I could be, maybe I will strive for that. What about fishies? 

I like the way you inverted this issue. The real question in my mind, is what kind of Milk are they serving at Chik Fil A? That cow seems really happy?

I don't know, but maybe we should boycott a company for civil rights violations. It seems totally reasonable to me. I guess then the question becomes is Chik Fil A really guilty of anything? 

I still think that the nutrition of a place like that is questionable. 

Humane?

"Birds raised in the United States for meat - mainly chickens and turkeys - may be sold as "range" if they have U.S. Department of Agriculture certified access to the outdoors. No other criteria, such as environmental quality, size of area, number of birds, or space per bird, are included in this term."

Sustainable?

"the baby brothers of the "free-range" hens are suffocated to death or ground up alive at the hatchery the same as those of battery-caged hens."

I hope you don't feel like I'm trying to attack you; I just think it's sad that a lot of people have misconceptions about what "free range" means. And sometimes it feels like people are trying to reconcile the fact that they eat meat with their "sustainability" attitudes.

http://www.upc-online.org/freerange.html

http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php

http://www.peta2.com/TAKECHARGE/t_factsheet_labels.asp

 It's ok. You are well within the parameters of healthy debate. This is a passionate issue, maybe it deserves it's own thread?

So, I don't have time to follow your links, but I will say that I have watched fast food nation and I know that there are atrocities in the meat industry. Do you feel like their is now way to over come this, should the whole world be vegetarian? It's ok if you do. I am not attacking your views either, just curious about how we should approach the issue. Specifically how you think we should approach this issue...

I think that everyone should educate themselves on where their food comes from. It's okay to eat meat and dairy, but I think that people should stop and think every once in a while about the animals that suffer so that we can eat.

I'm tempted to start a new thread, but the omnivore/vegetarian discussion is kind-of played out.

 Get over it.  

If you kids don't want to eat it, then don't.  Some people do.  You can't force them to stop, and talking about it isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Fact of the matter, Chick-fil-A is on campus and it's staying for now at least.  So just let it be and let people eat there if they please... discussing free range and politics etc isn't going to stop someone from eating there.

besides... have you checked out the other campus food?  and put it under the microscope like you have chick-fil-a? I bet not.  and I bet most of it doesn't fair any better either.

Be realistic.

I have, and I am growing fond of sub connection...

In general though, I think it is really important to have critical discussions about the food services we have available to us on campus. I think that the state of things are good, especially in the sense that there are options and food available, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be better. 

I always have found it fascinating how closed-minded the liberals at this school are.  They tout ideals of open-mindedness...right up until the point where someone disagrees with them.  It's so inanely hypocritical.

You say that Chick-Fil-A discrimintates against gay people, so let's not allow them on campus.  Think about that for a second.  So...let's selectively deny people the right to do business in certain places because you disagree with them?  Hmm...what does that sound like to you guys?   Discrimination, maybe?  A little?  Yeah?  Thought so.  What if a school (We'll say CWU...they're kind of conservative over in Eburg) refused to let a company on campus because they donated to a charity supporting LGBT rights?  As a gambling sort of person, I'd be very willing to bet a lot of the people supporting the ban of Chick-Fil-A from campus would be up in arms about discriminatory practices by the school, even though it's the EXACT same thing that's happening here, but with the shoe on the other foot.

Now, this is an old topic and I don't know if I'll get many responses, but I challenge any one of the whiny liberals in this forum to give me a LEGITIMATE reason as to why a corporation should be denied the right to do business in an area for the sole purpose that they donate to a legal charity.  Oh and by legitimate, that means for you to get off your moral high horse and actually make an effort to refute my argument that discriminating against a corporation for their political and religious beliefs is bogus.

 ??

lookin' for a fight with those lefty liberals, huh?

Good luck!

Actually, it's not "the EXACT same thing." It's attempting to eliminate bigotry vs. attempting to support bigotry. People want Chick-Fil-A off-campus because, for some, it says, "We support people who want to deny your way of life and what defines you as a person." People would want a company that donated to LGBT rights off-campus because it says something to the tune of "We support a minority who is being attacked for being different." On the surface level, they may appear to be the same, but no, they're not.

EPIC NECROMANCY

"We support people who want to deny your way of life and what defines you as a person"

This is the kind of argument that I find to be very frustrating.  Here's an argument that is just as out there as yours.  How about we give potential students a political questionairre and selectively deny all of the ones that don't support LGBT rights?  I mean, isn't it supporting those people if we consent to give them an education?  What if they use the revenue from the job they receive as a direct result of their education here to support these organizations?   

If a student consciously chooses not to eat there because their views clash with that of the corporation, then that is perfectly within their rights and I respect that choice.  However, there is no basis for the university to discriminate against their views to the point where they aren't allowed on campus. The university isn't even giving money to the organization.  The organization is PAYING to be on campus.  They get their money from the students who, by and large, buy from them on merit of food and not values.  Personally, when I walk into Chick-Fil-A and "support" it by buying something, the last thing on my mind is, "Every bite is bringing me one step closer to biblical justice!" 

My point is, the presence of a business on a campus and patronage thereof by customers does not signify any sort of affiliation with the views of the company, but just a deep-rooted love for tasty chicken sandwiches, albeit semi-overpriced.

Would be a great name for a band.  Seriously.

I didn't read through this whole thread, but I thought that this was a boycott, not a movement to deny chick-fil-a from doing business here. Boycotting someone for the values of a business and moving to deny their right to be on campus are very different things. One allows the business to continue but slow its operations to an undesireable level and the other moves to stop the business from being able to do business period. If the boycott works, they'll move their business, if it doesn't, it shows that maybe that issue isn't a big enough deal to get people not to eat there.

I would probably support a policy like this.

Me too~