I think they should have just kept on doing what they were doing.
They were doing just fine as things were.
I believe that they have experienced the success and favor which they have had due to the very fact that they were unwilling to compromise their convictions.
It will be interesting to see what transpires over the next year.
I would not be surprised if things change for the business.
They aren't any further along with the LGBTQ crowd.
Now they just have a bunch of Christians unhappy with their recent decision.
I guess time will tell.
I understood they were in a charitable contract with SA and FCA and that contract is up. [9 years].
Now they have chosen three other charities - the homeless, the hungry, and one more, I can't remember.
I so weary of perversion making decisions for the rest of the living.
No wonder John said, "11He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”
Chick Fil A caved.
They were under constant pressure and harassment by brownshirt sodomites, but the loyalty of the Christian community made up for that.
I'm surprised they didn't realize that totally canceling donations to the SA and FCA would result in a media backlash!
Far wiser (and Solomonic) would it have been only to shift *some* of the funding to those two groups over to the *new* charities they wanted to assist. But what do I know, as opposed to the Chik-Fil-A corporate gurus?
I don't know the exact arrangements between Chic-Fil-A and those organizations.
However, if a business signs an "agreement" with a charitable organization to donate a certain amount annually for a set number of years, that agreement will function a lot like a contract, though it would probably not be legally binding the way most contracts would be.
IMO, as long as Chic-Fil-A continues to make good* products and train staff to be polite and competent, they'll do just fine.
*Consumer Reports periodically polls subscribers on their satisfaction with fast food chains.
Chic-Fil-A has consistently earned top marks by a significant margin on those surveys, not just for outlets specializing in chicken but for all fast food categories.
There's no contract.
There's no agreement, as agreements take more than one side saying "yeah, I'll take your money". There is, if anything, at most, just a pledge that is not legally binding, even if some incompetent articles call a pledge a contract.
And, Chick Fil A caved because they're facing so much resistance to opening new locations and so much harassment at their existing locations.
(Harassment with the blessings of fascists like the anti-christian, anti-liberty LIBERTINE Party, which calls itself the Libertarian Party, and which local poster KenH has been a missionary for.)
Chick Fil A's food is not so great.
Popeye's and McDonald's both have better chicken sandwiches.
Much of their business, and approval, has been from Christians supporting them in the culture war (which is basically lost, by attrition).
Chick Fil A no longer deserves that loyalty.
I guess the 90,000 or so folks surveyed by Consumer reports must've been lying as well.
Of course, taste is in the tongue of the eater.
If there was a Chic-Fil-A lots closer than the current 75 miles, I'd stop there 100 times before going into the local McDonalds.
Not dissing Mickey D as I like lots of their offerings, merely stating a preference.
YMMV
I was only using the terminology that I read in another article where the author cited Chick-fi-la representatives.
Thanks to Revmitchell for posting that article.
"A charitable pledge is enforceable if it is a legally binding contract. A legally binding contract exists when there is agreement between the parties and there has been “consideration” given in exchange for the pledge. These are known as the three essential elements of a contract."