Boycotts can work, but only if the people who are organizing the boycott were patrons in the first place. Since Chik-Fil-A has been so flamboyantly Christian all along, and it's just prole food anyway, this isn't exactly like when the Whole Foods CEO talked smack about Obamacare.

Besides, Antoine Dodson has spoken.

It's no surprise that a special day like this got record sales. People who don't usually go there, made an effort to go eat at Chick-Fil-A yesterday but very few of them will become regulars because of this.

The way I see it, it's easy for people who don't agree with the company's stand to avoid Chick-Fil-A while people agreeing with the company will have to make a bigger effort if they wanna show their support.

That would only make sense if there were an effort to boycott "pro-gay" businesses, or if there were some kind of a battle between "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" businesses. There isn't. There's just some sad people who make a hobby of being offended by things trying to mount a boycott against a company and failing spectacularly.

Actually the point was simple irony.

All those people supporting CFA for their anti-gay stance utilizing technology and services from pro-gay companies in the process.

I hate to say it but I was in Hilton Head South Carolina last week and we were looking for some place cheap to eat. My GF chose Chik Fil-A and it was fucking delicious. Gay community, you have my support but a good chicken sandwich is hard to find.

But they're not attempting to boycott those companies, so it's not really ironic. They're just supporting one company that's getting a lot of shit for having a wrong opinion, including a lot of local asshole politicians threatening to take flagrantly unconstitutional actions against it.

I didn't say they were trying to boycott those comapnies.   That's irrelevent.  It's the circumstances of why they are supporting one company against the circumstances of how and what enabled them to promote their support of that company.   Irony is a juxtoposition of circumstances against differences.

Thanks, professor, but I know what irony is. I just don't really see how that's ironic. The last paragraph conflates supporting Chik-Fil-A with wanting to avoid PRO-GAY companies altogether, which is not a position I've heard anyone advocate.

But this may just be one of those "clever" things that people post on Facebook all the time that you find either hilarious or enraging depending on what side you're on, and since I'm neutral in the Great Chik-Fil-A War of '12 aside from being vehemently opposed to government getting involved, I just find it insipid and strawman-ish.

Well... define Pro-Gay.

Are these companies that actually give money to gay charities.

Or just companies that don't say bigoted things?