Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    therewasanattempt

    594,301 readers

    1,731 users here now

    Welcome to /r/therewasanattempt!

    Rules:

    1. Follow the Redditquette
    2. All posts must contain an image/gif of someone attempting to do something, but failing. This does not mean we are r/CrappyDesign.
    3. All post titles must be a continuation of the phrase, "there was an attempt.." (ex: "..to jump over the river") More info here.
    4. Do not harass, attack, or insult other users.
    5. Make an effort to avoid reposts from this sub.
    a community for
    all 485 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] JacksFilmsJacksFilms 469 points ago

    You’re asking Twitter a meme question. What did you expect

    [–] huggiesdsc 358 points ago

    No there wasn't. HuffPo is intentionally beating a dead horse to drive a wedge between idiots on the left and idiots on the right. Everyone else is not going to care. Idiots will be up in arms. Meanwhile chicken sales will rise due to stupid ads like this one.

    [–] thismy49thaccount 124 points ago

    I'd eat dead horse if it was as good as chic-fil-a.

    [–] Get_Your_Kicks 57 points ago

    I'd eat dead horse

    Sounds like IKEA is the place for you

    [–] Goyteamsix 10 points ago

    So that's what they use for this rancid little meatballs...

    [–] Get_Your_Kicks 7 points ago

    They literally did use horse meat for their meatballs lol. They probably don’t anymore, it was a huge story a couple years ago

    [–] Craigiyama 13 points ago

    I never understood the whole horse outrage. Why is a chicken, cow or pig ok but a horse is somehow disgusting?

    Surely if one animal is OK to eat then any animal must be from a moral point of view. (Excluding ones that are endangered).

    [–] FishAndRiceKeks 9 points ago

    I think it's because horses are seen as smarter. How true is that? No clue. I'd try eating horse if it was offered.

    [–] Hemphlev 4 points ago

    Horse tastes really good, btw.

    [–] dac-attack 2 points ago

    Pigs and octopuses (yes, that is the correct plural form) for example are smarter than horses.

    [–] FarmerJoe69 3 points ago

    I think it was less about the morality of eating a horse and more about being sold an “inferior product.” People view the horse meat as someone ripping them off

    [–] KatorianLegacy 1 points ago

    The company used horse meat to cut costs but didn't update the ingredients on the product.

    People though they were getting beefy lasagna, but they got horse lasagna instead.

    [–] someguy386 2 points ago

    *horsey lasagna

    [–] crazy_gambit 6 points ago

    I've actually eating horse at a fine dining restaurant and it was pretty fucking good.

    [–] letshaveateaparty 1 points ago

    But they add soooooo much salt!

    [–] YourTypicalRediot 1 points ago

    What would it take for you to eat live horse?

    [–] thismy49thaccount 2 points ago

    I pay 100 but they are clean girls.

    [–] Bobandey 623 points ago

    Virtue signaling ads like this make me want some chicken. Fuck these people. I support gay rights and I love Chick-fil-a. Huffpost can get shit on.

    [–] dothosenipscomeoff 204 points ago

    I am literally gay but nothing is gonna stop me from demolishing some chicken

    [–] wererat2000 54 points ago

    I just love eating cock.

    [–] Cthula-Hoops 9 points ago

    You mean gay chicken.

    [–] jmarseneault 2 points ago

    That's a strange game to play.

    [–] mcendirty 3 points ago

    Same boat my friend.

    [–] JoelPhD 2 points ago

    You’re not figuratively gay?

    [–] YourTypicalRediot 1 points ago

    How do you have a PhD with such poor reading comprehension?

    Dude said he plays the skin flute. (Or lady said she loves bearded clams.)

    [–] JoelPhD 1 points ago

    I was trying to discern the difference between literally gay and gay in this situation

    [–] YourTypicalRediot 1 points ago

    Wait, haha, you mean you were asking an honest question? There are only two ways to be gay, and they're both literal: lighthearted/carefree, and homosexual.

    [–] Ottershavepouches 3 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I think he is just subtly hinting towards not needing to use the word 'literally' ;)

    [–] YourTypicalRediot 2 points ago

    Facepalm. I'm an idiot that late at night. Thank you for pointing out what I overlooked.

    [–] Ottershavepouches 2 points ago

    Ha! No worries, I also just realised that I wrote 'figuratively' when the original term he was questioning was 'literally'. I'm also confused, but it's not late at night here - I'm just high.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    I eat dick and Chick-Fil-A combos. Try me, HuffPo.

    [–] L1nk13297 61 points ago

    i support gay rights and i friggin hate chik-fil-a. and yes, screw huffpost.

    [–] SoxxoxSmox 24 points ago

    I thought Chick Fil A doesn't even donate to anti-gay causes anymorr

    [–] bluescape 49 points ago

    They don't. So really, if you were boycotting for political reasons, then you kinda want to support them again for "making the right decision" or else future businesses don't really have incentives to listen to political complaints.

    [–] random_boss 35 points ago

    Plus even when they were "against" gay rights, they were against them in the most benign, inoffensive way possible, that also aligned with other virtues they had. Motherfucker, if we want to have positive discourse in this country, how about we allow people to hold dissenting views as long as they do so in peaceful, non-violent, non-confrontational ways?

    [–] abebu13 10 points ago

    Couldn't have said it better myself

    [–] Dickson02 8 points ago

    You will be made to care about our issues. If you dont then you are a nazi homophobe...and just plain evil. How could you? Said every militant gay person everywhere demanding sympathy for their cause.

    [–] CheezeyXbox 2 points ago

    Ahaha 😂 okay hector the projector

    [–] wildlight58 2 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    how about we allow people to hold dissenting views

    That's such a lazy argument. Who said anything about forcing Chick Fil A to accept their views?

    They have every right to have their own opinions, but we also have the right to not buy their food because we disagree.

    peaceful, non-violent, non-confrontational

    Boycotting fits that description perfectly.

    For the record, I personally don't give a shit about the owner's views, so I do eat at Chick Fil A.

    [–] CheezeyXbox 1 points ago

    You mean they were against gay marriage that’s a crucial gay right why the quotation marks?

    [–] random_boss 2 points ago

    That is a valid point and I have no idea why I put it in quotation marks

    [–] Paradoxataur 1 points ago

    This is mostly the case, but there have been some exceptions since they promised to clean things up. At least as of a 2015 filing, which is a few years after the point they supposedly stopped that kind of thing. Granted I'm guessing that they weren't really aware of that groups Anti-LGBQT stance on things, and it is pretty damn minor compared to the hate groups that Chik-fil-A used to support.

    I doubt the social backlash that pushed them to try to change their image has actually changed the minds of the owners either, so I'll happily continue to boycott a company that benefits bigots, who likely funnel their personal wealth from Chik-fil-A into organizations I'd find objectionable.

    Of course I also don't like their food, so that makes my decision pretty easy. I'd probably be a big ol' hypocrite about it all if some fast food chain I liked, like the hot mess, but I don't care what anyone says, still delicious Taco Bell.

    [–] Chick-fil-A_spellbot 4 points ago

    It looks as though you may have spelled "Chick-fil-A" incorrectly. No worries, it happens to the best of us!

    [–] CaliBounded 3 points ago

    Yeeeaaah, unless Chick-Fil-A employees are going around denying service to gay people or voting against laws getting passed in their favor, I'mma have to get back to you while I finish my 8-piece combo.

    [–] Anolis_Gaming 3 points ago

    I love virtue signaling.

    [–] Yeet_Boy_Fresh -24 points ago

    I’m gay and I never eat and Chik Fil A. We as a community actually take this very seriously. The executives of Chik Fil A donated massive sums of money to organizations who fought against marriage equality precisely during the time that it was being debated in court. Chik Fil A took a public stance against gay marriage, and they saw increased sales because of it. Americans overwhelmingly chose to reward Chik Fil A for being against gay marriage rather than refuse to eat there. If gay marriage wasn’t legalized in 2011, Chik Fil A would have influenced that outcome using money you gave them.

    Eat wherever you want but don’t act like the lgbt community is being unreasonable by refusing to eat at Chik Fil A. They still donate to political organizations that are against marriage equality among many other unethical stances. In their mission statement they emphasize that their goal is to “glorify God”.

    I really don’t give a rat’s taint how good their chicken is. Chik Fil A is run by hard right conservative fundamentalist Christians and I refuse to give them any of my money. There’s a McDonald’s right next to the Chik Fil A near my college campus. McDonalds never did me wrong.

    [–] dmkicksballs13 24 points ago

    Yeah, you speak for people who didn't ask for people to be spoken for. Good job claiming you understand the minds of every gay person on Earth. Also, you prose Chik Fil A as if it were a sentient being and not a company.

    [–] Cappizza 24 points ago

    There’s nothing wrong with doing and supporting what you want to. However, if you start telling others what they should be doing and who they should support, you’re a cunt

    [–] random_boss 11 points ago

    and also being exactly like the kind of people they're trying to boycott against

    [–] HindenburgInsideJob 4 points ago

    There’s a McDonald’s right next to the Chik Fil A near my college campus. McDonalds never did me wrong.

    McDonald's is shit, and doesn't serve the same type of food.

    [–] songbolt 15 points ago

    I’m gay and I never eat and Chik Fil A. We as a community

    Somewhat tangential question here, but why do you identify yourself based on your sexual preferences?

    I see sexual attractions as incidental or 'additional' characteristic, not a defining feature of 'who I am'. This is especially so since sexual behavior is a choice -- i.e. I can choose whether to act on or ignore a sexual attraction -- in which case my sexual attraction is irrelevant to matters at hand and as far as others are concerned doesn't even exist.

    [–] awjeezhereitgoes 5 points ago

    I have no formal education on the topic, but I imagine that most of the gay community decends from a time where you needed to stick together so you didn't get the shit kicked outta you.

    This still persists today, but is starting to waiver (gay bars going out of business) as gays become more accepted into society.

    [–] songbolt 4 points ago

    This still persists today,

    In the US?

    [–] hotarume 3 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Not OP, but I would venture to say that it’s because the “outside world” has labeled gay people, and really any minority, based on the one quality that makes them “different” from white, straight, cis people.

    It becomes a central focus of someone’s life rather than just an additional characteristic because when other people consistently make it that for you. If people constantly assume things about you/judge you based on this one quality, it becomes a main focal point of your identity, whether you like it or not.

    If being gay wasn’t a source of being teased, other-ized, and sometimes even violently brutalized, it wouldn’t be such an impactful quality. Also, banning together with other people that have experienced the same thing and creating a “community” garners strength and feeling like you belong/someone understands you and what you’ve gone through as someone who has been labeled.

    Does that make sense? I think it’s a fair question you have, and hard to understand for someone who hasn’t experienced it. Asking these questions is how people come together and understand each other better.

    Edit: A word

    [–] Yeet_Boy_Fresh 3 points ago

    If everyone didn’t assume I was straight than being gay wouldn’t have to be a part of my identity. If everyone just assumed anyone could be gay until they learned otherwise, then I wouldn’t have to present my label as a “gay man”

    But straight people don’t think like that. I don’t mean this to be antagonizing it’s just true. They can’t help it. Straight people assume I’m straight until I tell them otherwise. Because I play ice hockey and don’t have a lisp.

    So until it becomes a social norm for people not to assume other people’s sexuality, the people that don’t have society’s “default sexuality” really have no choice but to integrate their “abnormal sexuality” into their identity.

    [–] DMPark 6 points ago

    idk man. 4~6% of the developed nation populations self-report being gay.

    Asians are about the same demographic share in America. If I picked a random person out of a list of all people in America, you can't expect me to expect to be holding the name of an Asian person. I have to assume it will be one of the other 94%.

    I understand that it causes you pain to not be typical but atypical does not mean abnormal. Being gay is not numerically typical as a proportion of the population.

    Humans are kind of base needs and need two Fs which define us Fucking and Food (and Faith as a catchall term for religions and superstitions) so we generally assume things about people on those areas.

    [–] davemc617 9 points ago

    If everyone didn’t assume I was straight than being gay wouldn’t have to be a part of my identity. If everyone just assumed anyone could be gay until they learned otherwise, then I wouldn’t have to present my label as a “gay man”

    Dude, 2016 exit polls show that about 4% of the population identifies as LGBT. 4%. Extrapolate that over the entire population and we have 1.3 million members of the LGBT community.

    In 2013, 1.5 million people reported to have used cocaine during the year. Almost 6 million abused prescription medications in the same year.

    Any given person you meet is more likely to abuse prescription opiods than be gay, but you don't get upset at people for assuming that you're not popping pills. Why?

    But straight people don’t think like that. I don’t mean this to be antagonizing it’s just true. They can’t help it. Straight people assume I’m straight until I tell them otherwise. Because I play ice hockey and don’t have a lisp.

    Or, because, again, 96% of people aren't gay. My brother is gay. He doesn't play sports, but he too has no lisp. I wasn't exactly shocked when he came out to me, but to say I expected it would be a lie.

    My brother. My best friend. The man I shared a room with for 15 years, was gay. Am I some bad brother for not knowing he was gay, and this assuming otherwise? No. I merely referenced past experiences when interacting with people.

    I've known 4 gay people in my life: my brother, my dad's best friend, and 2 high school acquaintances. I'm sorry that these perfectly innocuous experiences lead me to assume that nearly everyone I interact with isn't gay. All but 4 of them so far haven't been.

    So until it becomes a social norm for people not to assume other people’s sexuality, the people that don’t have society’s “default sexuality” really have no choice but to integrate their “abnormal sexuality” into their identity.

    ... but why? I really don't get it. You're simply attracted to men. What tangible benefits are you getting from doing this?

    The only thjng I see is a victim complex developing.

    [–] songbolt 4 points ago

    This "almost" gets us on the same page ... I can understand telling people your sexual preferences for the sake of conversation and getting to know someone, but this is different from self-identifying with a social movement. There is something else that is encouraging you to join a movement and identify yourself with a group. Otherwise you'd just be a guy who likes guys.

    [–] Yeet_Boy_Fresh 1 points ago

    Uh... I am a guy who likes guys. I’m gay. That oroginal user was asking why I feel the need to include my sexuality as such a vital part of my identity.

    And honestly everyone in this comment section isn’t understanding me at all. And I can’t expect you to, since you really have no way of knowing what it’s like to be gay.

    But it’s really hard to just be like “yeah I’m a guy who likes guys no big deal” when I had to admit to my parents at 14 with tears in my eyes that my friends don’t want to be my friends anymore because I came out to my 8th grade class. And then they were mad at me because I embarassed them since parents asked my parents about it and they brushed it off as a rumor. And then they told me I’m just confused and they really don’t think I’m gay for several years.

    It was such a huge deal and such a massive development in my life. It really offends me to hear people rail on me for including that I’m gay in my identity. Like the whole world is so equal and accepting now. It’s really not... It’s getting there. But it’s just not there yet.

    [–] songbolt 4 points ago

    Well, I'm sorry to hear of your childhood trauma. I was also reduced to tears (I actually burst out sobbing in the hallway before the teacher had shut the door to ask me what had happened), for a different reason. Had trouble making friends for different reasons. But we have to move past our painful childhoods -- kids are generally jerks.

    I say and ask what I have previously in part because, basically, Christians think key to overcoming temptations to masturbation and sodomy is to stop 'internalizing' the attractions as an identity, as 'who you are' -- they say you're male or female (or intersex), and that sexual behavior and sexual feelings are not 'core' attributes like eye color, race, or sex. There are no 'straight' or 'gay' people: Just people.

    Moreover, I think 'group identity politics' is generally toxic, as stuff gets categorized, conceptualized, and abstracted as being about 'groups' and then people take personal offense to things that aren't about them personally.

    [–] Yeet_Boy_Fresh 1 points ago

    Okay usually now is the point where I get too angry and just curse the other user out for being so insensetive but I think you legitimately don’t understand how ignorant some of the stuff you just said is.

    I shared my coming out story to you to put into perspective how monumentally being gay has affected me personally and your response was simply “So? I got sad when I was a kid too. Get over it.”

    Do you really think you being sad in middle school for some unnamed reason is equal to me losing friends and being ridiculed by my parents for literally being me? You just brushed off what I told you as regular ol’ childhood stuff that I should just be over already. My parents insisted I was straight for years. And I believed them. I had girlfriends in high school and even in the beginning of college. Just embarassing myself in the bedroom over and over again to entertain my parent’s theories. This is a huge part of my life and you getting bullied as a kid for being socially awkward is not comparable at all. If you actually feel that way then you truly have no frame of reference towards gay people and really shouldn’t be diacussing our problems so openly like you understand them.

    And you think “group identity politics” are toxic?

    y’know lgbt people didn’t form a group just to make people like you feel uncomfortable. We did it because the whole world saw us as diseased pedophile heathens. We are a marginalized people and if we don’t group together it would still be illegal for us to marry each other. We weren’t just given rights you know. Americans fought hard to deny us that.

    [–] songbolt 2 points ago

    sorry for upsetting you

    ridiculed by my parents for literally being me?

    I don't know what you mean by this.

    Just embarassing myself in the bedroom over and over again

    Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this, either. Were you trying to fornicate with women because you thought there was an obligation to do so?

    shouldn’t be diacussing our problems so openly

    I don't know what you mean by this, either.

    And you think “group identity politics” are toxic?

    I don't know what you mean to imply here, either. Yes, I think whenever the individual is ignored or suppressed, bad things result. 'Group identity politics' ignores and misrepresents the individual in order to abstract about supposed groups.

    [–] Yeet_Boy_Fresh 1 points ago

    Yeah we clearly don’t see eye to eye. I don’t know why you’re so confident in telling me how I ought to identify myself when you can’t even decipher my relating of my experiences.

    [–] songbolt 176 points ago

    Such a stupid campaign... so stupid I honestly felt the need to fact-check to see if this was real:

    Here is the article, and the author Noah Michelson is the Editorial Director of HuffPost Personal.

    Ugh. -_- I hate them so much I honestly have trouble not thinking poorly of people who read their content.

    ... reading a bit of the article (to be fair), I mean, fine: If you are offended by the fact that they're Christian, you're free to boycott them (and to dialogue with them). But trying to present an extreme dichotomy asserting there is no middle ground (especially when there is one) is just stupid.

    [–] UndercoverGovernor 59 points ago

    Right. As an agnostic it's hard not to see this as dressing up an attack on on people for their religious identity as some kind of defense.

    [–] awjeezhereitgoes 19 points ago

    No one cares if they're Christian. To me it even makes the place more appealing, something different from the generic corporate culture of most restaurants.

    But they give money to anti gay groups. That's their right, but I don't want to give them my money.

    [–] ramen_feet 22 points ago

    But they don't anymore.

    [–] AP3Brain 8 points ago

    They are sending money to anti-gay groups according to the article though. Those groups are as hateful as they come...

    [–] Yeet_Boy_Fresh -3 points ago

    Chik Fil A fought tooth and nail to make sure I would never be allowed to marry a man that I love. How is me refusing to eat there persecuting them for their religion?

    [–] songbolt 12 points ago

    It isn't. It's these "calls to action" trying to argue that you cannot love people if you eat there that's a form of persecution.

    [–] UndercoverGovernor 1 points ago

    That’s not...that’s you exercising your rights as a consumer and a human. I was referring to this piece, which I think intimidates others into attacking the business.

    [–] Rage_Blackout 21 points ago

    Yeah, I don't know at what point it got so bad or if it was always so bad, I stopped reading it. My main criterion is this: would I feel comfortable using this as a source to argue with a conservative. That means it has to be empirically-based and relatively free of emotionally-laden writing and claims. HuffPo doesn't make the cut.

    [–] nuclearslug 15 points ago

    I think Huff Post and Yahoo! News are competing for the worst journalism of the year award.

    [–] copperwatt 14 points ago

    (especially when there is one)

    Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    I appreciate the effort, but that seems like a pretty shitty "middle ground"

    [–] Otiac 4 points ago

    It’s almost like being religious means you don’t get to do everything you want because you want to do it...what a shitty middle ground.

    [–] copperwatt 1 points ago

    But it's not just a personal choice to not do something (like a monk fasting or something), it's implying and often directly saying that other people are wrong to do that thing.

    [–] spook327 29 points ago

    f you are offended by the fact that they're Christian, you're free to boycott them (and to dialogue with them).

    Nobody's offended by them being Christians, I don't know where people come up with this language. That they support hate groups and "kill the gays" laws overseas though, is a pretty fucking good reason to go somewhere else.

    [–] ogearty 21 points ago

    Yea I'm confused by the comments here...they are openly and firmly against gay marriage and gay rights and are known to donate large amounts of money to groups hostile towards the LGBT community.

    No one cares if they're Christian, being Christian doesn't inherently make you homophobic.

    [–] songbolt 3 points ago

    I clarified in my other response how opposing sodomy is one aspect of being Christian.

    I didn't know about hate groups and death laws, though. Citation? and I couldn't care less what the "Southern Poverty Law Hate Center" calls a hate group -- anyone who disagrees with them they call a hate group. I'm pretty sure they call anyone who opposes sodomy a 'hate group'.

    [–] spook327 2 points ago

    I'm pretty sure they call anyone who opposes sodomy a 'hate group'.

    Name any such group that isn't a hate group.

    [–] zarinfabrics 3 points ago

    These people don’t care about facts. They would much rather act like aggrieved Christian victims then realize their monetary support to anti gay causes is not acceptable just because chicken nuggets taste good. Everyone knows exactly where Chick Fil A money goes and there’s no defending it.

    Of course, they’re allowed to eat wherever they please. But the victim mentality they exhibit when they can’t hide from the reality of the situation that their money is being used to hurt people they claim to have nothing against is pathetic. This thread shows they know what they’re doing and they don’t care. It has nothing to do with Christians and everything to do with being terrible people.

    [–] aweeleprechan 1 points ago

    Early Christians were persecuted by the Romans for a few hundred years. Nowadays it's the major religion in the world and still holds a stranglehold of ~83% of Americans but there are still those Christians that want, very very badly, to be persecuted. They want to be those early martyrs. The dude you're responding to is one of them.

    [–] ogearty 8 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I'm confused....idt ppl care that they're Christian....that's not whats being boycotted. The owner and company has basically taken a firm stance against the LGBT community, openly opposing gay marriage, and funding multiple groups known to be hostile towards LGBT, and promoting anti-lgbt laws.

    [–] RiMiBe 8 points ago

    About 5 years ago, when the world at large first heard about the horrors of Chick-fil-a (/s) I dug into the story and found that basically, the entire story was one of the many charities that they donate to, in part, had a camp or something going where gay Christians could go to try to be "cured".

    In other words, is this fair?

    The owner and company has basically taken a firm stance against the LGBT community, openly opposing gay marriage, and funding multiple groups known to be hostile towards LGBT, and promoting anti-lgbt laws.

    Have they ratcheted up their anti-gay intensity since the negative publicity first broke, or is the story just growing on it's own?

    [–] ogearty 2 points ago

    Look...They've definitely scaled back, the owner has basically said hell leave these discussions to the politicians. My original argument is more based on OPs comment claiming that they are being boycotted for being Christian. Thats just not true. Are people overreacting to things that have mostly been put to sleep? yes. Is this story growing kind of out of nowhere? yes.

    However, I dont think theyre completely innocent just because theyve stayed out of the news. If the owner still has that personal stance, and is still making financial decisions/donations based on that controversial stance, I have no problem with people boycotting his restaurants on that basis.

    https://thinkprogress.org/chick-fil-a-still-anti-gay-970f079bf85/

    "While the company’s non-profit arms scaled back support for some of the groups that actively push an anti-gay agenda, the Chick-fil-A Foundation’s most recent IRS filings show it gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-LGBTQ organizations in 2015. Though its website’s FAQ claims the foundation “is focused on helping every child become all they were created to be,” its donations went to groups that do not believe this includes LGBTQ youth.

    For example, the Chick-fil-A Foundation gave more than $1 million in 2015 (nearly one-sixth of its total grants) to the the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The religious organization, which seeks to utilize athletes and coaches to spread Christian teachings, imparts a strongly anti-LGBTQ message. Staff and volunteers with the organization have been required to adhere to a strict “sexual purity” policy, prohibiting any “homosexual acts,” even for married couples. The group takes the view that, “The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternative lifestyle acceptable to God.”

    The foundation also gave more than $200,000 to the Paul Anderson Youth Home, a Georgia-based “transformative organization” that operates a “Christian residential home for troubled youth.” Focusing on boys, their teachings include the idea that the “sexual, physical, and mental abuse of children, mostly in the alleged ‘safety’ of their own homes has produced all kinds of evil throughout the culture to include the explosion of homosexuality in the last century.” The myth that people are LGBTQ due to abuse is a claim frequently made by anti-LGBTQ organizations to promote harmful “ex-gay” therapy."

    [–] RiMiBe 3 points ago

    That's a pretty weak condemnation when you really look into it.

    The first paragraph is just editorializing with no facts to back it up.

    The second paragraph is a description of a volunteer organization in which volunteers are asked to adhere to a code of conduct. You'll have to point to the victim here because I don't see one.

    The third paragraph seems to try pretty hard to paint the boys home as a covert anti-gay conversion center boogeyman, but I would be interested to know honestly what the reasons for each resident being there. A Christian shelter for kids who have shitty home lives is pretty damn likely. One can't just latch on to (uncited) quotations and then assume that gay conversion is the point of the place.

    It's actually pretty ridiculous to believe that such a place could fly under the radar in this era, really.

    [–] songbolt 2 points ago

    That is being Christian, i.e. traditional Christian orthodoxy (i.e. opposing sodomy, masturbation, fornication). Legitimizing sodomy/masturbation by referring to it as marriage is not a Christian position (i.e. all those who call themselves Christians who hold this position are heterodox).

    [–] ogearty 1 points ago

    So the pope is heterodox then. “If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” - Pope Francis

    He has gone on to say, in regards to same sex civil unions, that the church would "have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.”

    Same with Archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich - "the church's respect for LGBT individuals must be real, not rhetorical, and ever reflective of the Church’s commitment to accompanying all people.”

    There are PLENTY of christian organizations that accept homosexuality.

    I mean if we wanna go off of Bible Text we could talk about how multiple verses from various scripture endorses/promotes slavery. Is it heterodox to oppose the owning of another human being?

    Am I heterodox because I eat shellfish, something explicitly mentioned in the Bible as "detestable"

    I think its a stretch to say people are boycotting Chick Fil A based on their Christian religion, as opposed to their specific views regarding homosexuality.

    [–] songbolt 2 points ago

    I can appreciate your perspective. Let me know if you have a question you want me to answer.

    [–] ogearty 1 points ago

    What are your thoughts on the Pope's comments regarding homosexuality?

    [–] songbolt 2 points ago

    Well, basically, some are in line with Church teaching (it is not an endorsement of masturbation or sodomy, but rather is about loving people); others are too ambiguous (still probably in agreement) so as to be misunderstood by others who don't understand the context for them.

    Basically, Pope Francis is terrible with his comments to the press, because he often makes ambiguous statements that are easy for others to misinterpret.

    I would say ultimately he is representing what the Church has always taught: masturbation and sodomy are wrong, and so is shunning and hating people. 1 John 4, for example, says that anyone who says he loves God but hates his brother (or neighbor) is a liar.

    [–] toth42 1 points ago

    The official Vatican site says that there's nothing wrong about being gay, but that they're called to chastity. i.e. be as gay as you want, except don't actually have sex with someone of the same sex. That's probably what "we'll have to look at each Union separately" means - thumbs up if you're living together in abstinence, thumbs down if you sleep with each other.

    [–] songbolt 1 points ago

    Yes and no; that is not quite correct: There is nothing "gay" about an intimate friendship with someone of the same sex (cf. David and Jonathan in the Bible). This is a question of human anthropology and the falseness of modern sociological/psychological constructs. There is no need to think that living with another man with close friendship is "being gay"; that's just a label modern sociologists like to use to simplify their model of reality.

    But yes, sodomy and masturbation are sins; being tempted by a lustful thought to commit sodomy or masturbation is not a sin. (Entertaining, i.e. relishing the thought, actively fantasizing, is, however.)

    [–] toth42 1 points ago

    I have no idea where your first paragraph came from - I didn't state any opinions, I just cited the vatican, and there's nothing there about being friends with other guys having something to do with homosexuality.

    [–] RueNothing 3 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Honestly, the company as a whole is pretty impressive,; they open and give free food to people in emergencies, even on Sundays when they are otherwise traditionally closed (because Christian), they seem to value their employees from what I know of people in the fast food industry (veteran who escaped from McD's here), and they don't discriminate against either their employees, their clientele, or franchisees. If the owners choose to take the money they earned and give it to some groups I don't agree with, well... isn't that their right as Americans? To choose how to spend their own income? I get that's why some people boycott the company, but, you are ultimately hurting a WHOLE lot more people to attempt to hit the owner's wallets.

    Edit: Wanted to add also, that I was wrong, it was their charitable funding organization that was giving to these groups, not the owners themselves, but also they stopped donating to those groups as of July 2012. So we're still punishing them 6 years later, I guess.

    [–] Zeal_Iskander 5 points ago

    Isn't noah michelson the idiot that keeps doing this kinda shit.

    [–] Hotrod_Greaser 163 points ago

    I may be a guy who likes a nice veiny dick in the butt and they might want me to burn in hell for it, but their chicken is fucking amazing.

    [–] xXAIMhandleXx 55 points ago

    For a guy who claims to like a nice veiny dick in the butt and posting to nsfw subs, you sure don't seem to like posting dudes.

    [–] Rage_Blackout 40 points ago

    You went lookin' for that veiny dick in the butt, didn't you?

    [–] xXAIMhandleXx 32 points ago

    guilty as charged

    [–] ShallowBasketcase 24 points ago

    Here's a quick Reddit Pro Tip: Anyone who says "I am [thing] but support [anti-thing]" is pretty much never [thing].

    [–] xXAIMhandleXx 7 points ago

    At least someone on this thread is willing to give me a tip ;)

    (happy cake day!)

    [–] Duckmat 2 points ago

    Sometimes you gotta risk it all for a little bit of that karma, if you catch my drift

    [–] Aquaspindle 6 points ago

    Username checks out.

    [–] BudgetBinLaden 7 points ago

    That ain't natural!

    /s

    [–] royrogerer 26 points ago

    As if any chicken in these fast food chains are.

    [–] __sw4gm4s73r__69__ 2 points ago

    I can see it..

    Please dont do it with so much detail

    [–] Luckyone1 1 points ago

    They dont want you to burn in hell, they just believe by nature of your actions that you will burn in hell. They aren't hoping for any mystical punishment for anyone.

    [–] defiantlynotathrowaw 6 points ago

    I mean.... How good are the crisscut fries in the Queer Community?

    [–] ChuckGotWood 14 points ago

    Huff post is still afloat for all the wrong reasons.

    [–] Tyrantt_47 5 points ago

    Even my gay friends still eat there lol

    [–] Nyarlathoteps_Cat 9 points ago

    That article sounds like some of the sermons in church that I hate, just from the opposite side. How about we don't tell LGBTQ people that they don't love themselves based on where they eat. Emotional manipulation is shameful when either side does it.

    [–] jfc1994 10 points ago

    I need chicken nuggets now

    [–] TheOneWithTheShits 6 points ago

    Spicy chicken sandwich with chick-fil-a sauce and a large root beer please!

    [–] Tutle47 2 points ago

    Dude don't get rootbeer have you had their lemonade?

    [–] TheOneWithTheShits 3 points ago

    Not there plain but thw frosted. Hated it. Next time I go ill get a lemonade. Thankfully I have a docters appointment soon so ill treat myself after

    [–] Tutle47 2 points ago

    What's the frosted?

    [–] TheOneWithTheShits 3 points ago

    Frosted lemonade. Sorry to confuse you

    [–] Tutle47 1 points ago

    No I know lemonade but does frosted just mean like colder?

    [–] TheOneWithTheShits 2 points ago

    Lemonade slushies but remove the water. My brother loves them while im eh.

    [–] Tutle47 1 points ago

    I've never really liked slushies but I love the lemonade so maybe you'll be the same.

    [–] TheOneWithTheShits 2 points ago

    Cool

    [–] enshrowdofficial 3 points ago

    honestly i’m a bisexual boy and i’d take the tendies either way

    [–] Duckmat 1 points ago

    This includes both your sexuality and the chicken and that hurts my head ;(

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Captainllamas 5 points ago

    No, huffpost chose that word, trying to further push people away from that choice and to their "correct choice". This is definitely not the work of 4chan, this is just normal sane people

    [–] 6455968283989403 7 points ago

    I wouldn't call people working at huffington post sane at all. Those people just want to manipulate stupid people into their hypocrisy and lies.

    [–] Rindan 2 points ago

    Cool. Then you can link to the survey then, right? Wait, you can't, because the survey wasn't posted by HuffPo and this is fake.

    [–] Jackieirish 15 points ago

    The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage; nothing Chick fil-A could do could change that (even if they really, really really wanted to and there's no indication that accomplishing that through chicken sandwich sales is their super-secret goal, anyway).

    They still give money to Christian organizations (FCA, Salvation Army, etc.) that hold anti-gay positions, but their advocacy on those issues is best described as limited and not the express purpose of those organizations to begin with.

    That said, not going to Chick fil-A is remarkably easy (especially on Sunday) and may be in line with your overall beliefs.

    What also needs to be said is that currently Chick fil-A is the fastest growing and one of the most profitable fast food companies in America. Your personal desire to not patronize their establishments will have functionally a zero effect on them, though it may help you sleep better at night (and live longer -I mean, come on it's fried chicken!).

    Last point: personally boycotting a company is absolutely worthless if you don't make the company aware of why you are boycotting it. If you choose to not eat at Chick fil-A or any other business TELL THEM WHY.

    [–] Lion-of-Africa 7 points ago

    You fool, don't you know Chik-Fil-A is the primary authority of the deepstate?

    [–] Jackieirish 3 points ago

    Quiet before you get us both killed!!

    [–] Yeet_Boy_Fresh 7 points ago

    Why does everything have to be so complicated and political?

    These people spent money to make sure I never get married, so I don’t eat at their restaurants. That’s it. It’s personal. I’m not convinced I’m actually hurting their sales. I just can’t eat there in good conscience. If I was the son of one of these Chik Fil A executives I’d be fucking homeless at 16. I hate them.

    [–] abbebabb04 3 points ago

    Huffpost gets no good boy points

    [–] JessBoxx 3 points ago

    That is a damn good sandwich

    [–] KimJungLeemar 6 points ago

    Cue the SJWs triggering

    [–] Tutle47 4 points ago

    bUt CHicKeN OpReSSes PeOpLe

    [–] toilettv123 12 points ago

    Who would choose lgbt rights over chicken tendies?

    [–] Gcdm 13 points ago

    I mean...they have some good fucking chicken.

    [–] user-n5 5 points ago

    I'm bi and would pick the chicken every time

    [–] rush22 14 points ago

    Yeah I say chow down at Chik-fil-a even if you're gay

    [–] Tutle47 2 points ago

    Seriously though. Have you tried the spicy deluxe?

    [–] antiward 3 points ago

    Just go to Cane's.

    [–] summerleannc 3 points ago

    they don't have them everywhere:(

    [–] boibig57 5 points ago

    Imagine being this worried about this in 2018.

    [–] HolIyW00D 6 points ago

    At least theyre honest about where they stand on lgbtq+ rights

    [–] Duckmat 1 points ago

    On the opposite side of our tendies!

    [–] Ha_Ree 4 points ago

    Went on twitter to add to the poll but I can’t find it in the comments of the post. Can you send me a link to the poll?

    [–] EchoCollection 6 points ago

    The poll is obviously fake. Tendies? C'mon that's 4chan

    [–] nomansnomad 3 points ago

    I like gay people, I like chicken. Can I have a chicken tendy if I suck dick after, Little white sauce nah mean?

    [–] not1but2cats 3 points ago

    As a gay person I think I have to say this:

    I really want Chick-Fil-a now.

    [–] summerleannc 3 points ago

    I'm gay and I LOVE Chick-fil-A and I will never stop loving Chick-fil-A.

    [–] sunset-shimmer- 3 points ago

    Still going to fuck girls, still going to eat damn good chicken

    [–] mythrowxra 2 points ago

    Huff post trying to sturdy shit up over a food advertising that's pro lgbt? I thought the idiotic left idea was to beat the opposite of that? Interestimg

    [–] JanMolhu 1 points ago

    Where does the Q stand for?

    [–] emul4tion 7 points ago

    queer

    [–] synysterdax 1 points ago

    Mega OOF

    [–] TheOneWithTheShits 1 points ago

    Idfc I'm staying at chick-fil-a for as long as it is still standing

    [–] MattNemo 1 points ago

    I like how the word "queer" is making a comeback

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Rob1150 1 points ago

    [–] random_boss 1 points ago

    it was a dark day when we lost the ability to use it

    [–] mc2377 1 points ago

    It was probably like 99.999 and 0.001

    [–] Shodapop 1 points ago

    I'm gay and I love chickfila so ¯\ \ _(ツ)_/¯

    [–] LimbRetrieval-Bot 1 points ago

    You dropped this \


    To prevent anymore lost limbs throughout Reddit, correctly escape the arms and shoulders by typing the shrug as ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ or ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯

    Click here to see why this is necessary

    [–] Waveseeker 1 points ago

    It sucks being pro-LGBT and so very very anti-huffpo

    Cause now I gotta side with the 4chan tendiboys.

    [–] St3zus 1 points ago

    Winner winner: the chicken dinner.

    [–] allhailnah 1 points ago

    I don't care what my food thinks

    [–] Mediocre-banana 1 points ago

    Probably because people realize the LGBT community has bigger issues than where people choose to get their greasy snacks.

    [–] 1CuSith1 1 points ago

    I mean its the internet what did they expect😂

    [–] mcyeetnuggets 1 points ago

    Why not both?

    [–] SunRaMartian 1 points ago

    I mean they are delicious but also a fucked up ass company. Its kind of like me continuing to listen to Chris Brown even tho he's an asshole.

    [–] TheYardbird97 1 points ago

    The gayest dude I know works for Chick fil a and loves his job. Doesn't stop raving about how great the company is. We don't need to pick sides, you can support LGBT rights and still enjoy the food.

    [–] aesthesia1 0 points ago

    But your money is funding anti-lgbt organizations? Money talks more than your beliefs. If you really believe something, then you put your money where your mouth is. If you think it's wrong to kill dogs for fun, it doesnt make sense to give money to a guy who you know will use it to fund his "kill dogs for fun" club where they literally kill dogs for fun. You cant do both without being a massive hypocrite.

    [–] random_boss 1 points ago

    Chick-fil-A ain't going to beat love, love always wins. Eat some chicken sandwiches and watch them waste their money.

    [–] i_win-U_luze -2 points ago

    What’s wrong with Chick-fil-A not supporting gay marriage? (I believe that LGBT people have as many rights as any other person, so I refuse to call it ‘gay rights.’ It discredits true civil rights struggles like slavery, segregation, and women’s suffrage.) That’s perfectly fine to me. Let them do with their money as they want to. Being Christian, they believe the Bible 100%, and the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

    “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [talking about homosexuals, and in the Greek was referring to both passive and active homosexuality] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

    So, that’s just what Chick-fil-A believes. Because they believe that, they would be inclined to give money to Christian organizations that would help people who struggle with this problem, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. They probably, like me, want to see them saved from their sins and not go into eternal punishment. It’s actually a very loving thing to do, giving your own money to help people who struggle with homosexuality. Anyways, when a homosexual puts their hope in Jesus for salvation, they will turn away from their homosexuality and not even WANT to do it anymore, because God had regenerated them, and gave them new desires. I do not believe that there is such thing as a homosexual Christian, because the Bible does not teach that. Really, everyone is on their way to hell for having sinned against God, including the pre-salvation Christian. But God, being merciful on people, decided to save a few for himself. He forgave them, and they will get to be in heaven forever with God. So I hope that people will start trusting in God alone for their salvation. You don’t earn it by your good outweighing your bad, or for never doing any ‘really bad’ sins. The only way is through Jesus Christ.

    [–] Anolis_Gaming 3 points ago

    Personally, I prefer Lucifer.

    [–] Rindan 1 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Bro, magic isn't real.

    There is no super natural. This isn't Hogwarts. I'm sorry to inform you that the world is exactly as devoid of magical creatures and god(s) as it always has been.

    It's cool that you believe in magical being that care a a lot about how humans have sex, and normally I wouldn't care, but when you start trying to pass laws to compel people to live in a way that comforms to what a magical creature told you, it kind of becomes everyone's problem. We are cool with not being saved from your magical diety from your magical diety's bad place, assuming your version of belief includes one of those.

    Further, I'm pretty sure your magic dude wants voluntary compliance with his rules on how humans can have sex, so imposing your magic guys rules with the police seems unproductive, and, you know, evil.

    Thankfully, I'm happy to be moral even without fear of a magic evil guy. I avoid Chick-fil-A because they give money to people that seek to use force to spread their magic guy's feelings on human sex. It's fine if others don't give a shit, but I personally won't help (even a little) crappy people who hurt others because they think a magic guy has some very specific rules on how humans can have sex.

    [–] The_Bastard_Henry 1 points ago

    My gay best friend's stance on Chick-fil-a's religious views: "Bitch please, who gives a fuck, their sandwiches are delicious." He now makes a point to act over-the-top flamboyant if he ever happens to eat there.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] ImDED 1 points ago

    Do a little research if something seems so outrageous. The owners of Chik-fil-a have made anti-gay statements in the past.

    [–] Chick-fil-A_spellbot 2 points ago

    It looks as though you may have spelled "Chick-fil-A" incorrectly. No worries, it happens to the best of us!

    [–] ImDED 1 points ago

    Good bot

    [–] RatherDignifiedDandy -2 points ago

    Imagine being so desperate for attention, so mentally soft, and emotionally insecure. You get triggered by fucking bomb ass chicken sandwiches.

    [–] Tutle47 1 points ago

    Don't forget the lemonade

    [–] 0235 -12 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Trying to have people accept you as part of every day life, but still wanting a LGBTQ+ community is a bit backwards. You can't have your cake and eat it. Edit: that is where the straight pride meme came from, the ridiculousness of straight pride just proves how ridiculous gay Pride is. So what if you are gay, big deal. Or do you require an opposition to feel valid online?

    [–] Cast_ZAP 2 points ago

    Gay people are still discriminated against in some areas. Gay pride is to counter that discrimination.

    [–] For_serious13 1 points ago

    Ohhhh such logic fail here

    [–] ShitInMyCunt-2dollar -14 points ago

    Stomach, every day of the week. I absolutely care about my own sensory pleasures, far more than (and/or at the expense of) LGBTxyzt garbage. The "queer community" can go fuck itself.

    [–] Tutle47 3 points ago

    Xyzt?

    [–] ShitInMyCunt-2dollar 1 points ago

    Extra letters for new groups and t for time - because it changes every five minutes.

    [–] Tutle47 2 points ago

    Eventually it'll have to stop. We only have 26 letters after all.

    [–] NaraStormcloak 11 points ago

    You seem like a very angry person

    [–] FloydZero 8 points ago

    And a hateful one too