The headlines came fast and furious after Chick-fil-A revealed Monday that it will capitulate to the gay-rights activists who have attacked it for years.
The Babylon Bee declared that the fast-food chain, known for its mouth-watering chicken sandwiches, had traded its adoring Christian fans for an outraged mob that won’t be appeased until its every demand is met. Which is confusing because I thought the Bee was a satire website, not real news.
But seriously, Chick-fil-A’s decision is sure to upset many of its conservative Christian supporters who have appreciated the company’s emphasis on faith and family values, including closing on Sunday to allow employees time for rest and worship. (As far as I know, the chain hasn’t given into any demands that it start opening on the Lord’s Day.)
As far as reactions from those who see marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman, these are just a few of the tweets that caught my attention:
But the coverage in many mainstream news stories — and this is perhaps no surprise — fails to reflect that side of the story.
Instead, most of the headlines I’ve seen present this as a case of Chick-fil-A finally doing the right thing and distancing itself from “anti-LGBTQ” groups. Those groups are, of course, the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which if I understand correctly have committed the modern-day sin of believing in a traditional biblical view of marriage.
Among the headlines are this one from the Los Angeles Times (“Chick-fil-A says it won’t donate to anti-LGBTQ groups — at least for now”) and this one from CNN (“Chick-fil-A will no longer donate to anti-LGBTQ organizations”).
The question is: Should the press — if it wants to be fair and accurate — characterize the two Christian groups that way?
The Dallas Morning News notes, for example:
The Salvation Army has disavowed claims it discriminates against any individual, saying it serves "everyone no matter who they are, what their sexual orientation is, what their station in life is. We serve without discrimination.” The comment was prompted by pop star Ellie Goulding nearly calling off her halftime performance at the Dallas Cowboys’ Thanksgiving game over concerns about the group’s alleged discriminatory views. Salvation Army leaders eventually convinced Goulding that wasn’t the case.
In the past, the Salvation Army has come under fire for supporting legislation allowing it to deny employment and federally funded services to LGBT individuals. The organization offers health care benefits to same-sex couples and has taken steps locally to make transgender people seeking shelter more comfortable.
The Associated Press headline probably gets closer to simply stating the facts instead of making a value judgment (“anti” being a loaded term):
Chick-fil-A halts donations to 3 groups against gay marriage
Of course, AP could be even more accurate by saying: “Chick-fil-A halts donations to 3 groups for traditional marriage.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times headline also seems closer to the mark:
Chick-fil-A Stops Giving to 2 Groups Criticized by L.G.B.T.Q. Advocates
I don’t have the time or space to analyze all the news reports I saw (some better than others), but the Los Angeles Times story struck as a particularly apt example of a one-sided story that makes little effort at all to present a full picture.
Let’s start with the lede:
Chick-fil-A Inc. said its philanthropic arm will not donate next year to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes or the Salvation Army — which espouse or have been linked to anti-LGBTQ stances — as the chain of chicken restaurants continues to face public pressure about its charitable giving.
Espouse or have been linked to anti-LGBTQ stances? What exactly does that mean?
A few paragraphs later, there’s this:
The chain has been working to shed its image as an opponent of LGBTQ rights, and this year the debut of a rival chicken sandwich from Popeyes offered Chick-fil-A’s customers a wildly popular alternative.
OK, is there any actual evidence — outside some Los Angeles Times food writers doing a video taste test — that Popeye’s has hurt Chick-fil-A’s bottom line?
Keep reading, and the story says:
In 2012, Dan Cathy — who was then the company president — kicked a hornet’s nest by saying in an interview that Chick-fil-A was “very much supportive of” the “biblical definition of the family unit.” Cathy is the founder’s son and now serves as chief executive.
“We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy told Baptist Press at the time. “But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles.”
His remarks sparked an immediate backlash. Protesters gathered at Chick-fil-A restaurants, politicians denounced the chain, and Jim Henson Co. pulled out of a dealto make toys for its kids’ meals. Shortly after, Chick-fil-A said it would no longer donate money to anti-LGBTQ groups.
OK, I’ll resist commenting on that “kick a hornet’s nest” cliche and simply note that all of the developments cited sound really bad. It appears, since we’re resorting to hackneyed phrases, that Chick-fil-A is on its last (chicken) legs.
Except that over at the Wall Street Journal, I read this:
Chick-fil-A is one of the fastest-growing domestic fast-food chains, with more than 2,400 U.S. restaurants. Its crispy fried-chicken sandwich and focus on speed and service have found fans well beyond its Southern base in recent years.
My initial impression is that the Chick-fil-A news isn’t going away. This is the kind of major splash in the culture war that seems destined to draw more attention and coverage. From a journalistic perspective, I’d love to see the news media work harder to make sure that it reports on all the involved parties in the most impartial way so that readers/viewers can come to their own conclusions.
As for me, I enjoyed my usual breakfast at Chick-fil-A this morning, although the line seemed a little shorter than usual.
Was that just a coincidence? Or did some regular customers not appreciate the Chick-fil-A decision? Stay tuned to see if there is a real backlash.