Intolerant Collectivists Send "Chick-Fil-A" Stock Soaring Hatching More Billionaires
Submitted by Barracuda_Trader on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 23:24Hidden Chick-fil-A Billionaires Hatched as Value Soars
By Brendan Coffey - Jul 31, 2012
Chick-fil-A Inc., the Atlanta-based fast-food chain feuding with gay-rights advocates over some executives' stance on marriage, has served up two hidden billionaires.
The two sons of Samuel Truett Cathy, the chicken sandwich empire’s founder -- Dan Cathy, 59, and Donald Cathy, who is known as Bubba -- have joined the ranks of the world’s richest, according to a report published today by PrivCo, a New York- based research firm that specializes in private companies’ financial data.
The report values Chick-fil-A at $4.5 billion. Dan Cathy, the company’s president, and Don Cathy, its executive vice president, each own a third of the restaurant chain, according to a person familiar with the company who asked not to be named because it is closely held. Neither has appeared on an international wealth list.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/hidden-chick-fil-a-...
- Login to post comments
thought police.
.
Naturalnews
maybe this was posted elsewhere, but in case you missed it -
Editor's comment on the theology, science and stupidity of the Chick Fil-A controversy:
Chick-fil-A sandwiches contain MSG, HFCS and anti-foaming chemicals;
eating them is a sin in the eyes of God
Thursday, August 02, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036653_Chick-fil-A_anti-boycott_i...
Political Chicken And Coffee
"Does it really matter how companies feel about whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Instead of asking themselves that simple question, Americans on both sides of the debate have decided to instead jump to their feet — in largely meaningless ways — and engage themselves in a debate that has nothing to do with marriage equality or moral tradition."
http://personalliberty.com/2012/08/02/political-chicken-and-...
What this issue proves to me
The Ron Paul movement is unified in its opposition to the prevailing two party system and everyone involved claims to be a proponent of liberty but there are HUGE DIFFERENCES IN VALUES AND BELIEFS within the movement that just seems to get swept under the rug by all involved - the passion and fervor for Ron Paul overrides the differences right now but long term I don't think the movement can survive as long as the competing visions that are so obvious are not reconciled someway - I feel that the core is libertarian but there is a huge group that is really just radical right wing drawn by the shared distrust of the federal government and there is another huge group that are really left wingers who are drawn primarily because of the pacifist foreign policy. Eventually these groups will not have Romney or Obama to focus on or will it have the Ron Paul charisma to unite the groups - then things will get interesting.
I don't see any issue with the fact gays are criticized. And?
It is all about free speech.
You and me have what we share in common, and that is I'll defend your right to say what you say even if I don't agree a bit.
The fact is, God has been removed from daily life over a period of time in America. That isn't opinion but fact.
That certainly has something to do with our predicament and the country's future. Yep, that part is opinion - but it is a very correct opinion and there's two sides to this story.
A country, city, or anything including a "business" - cannot survive ultimately when God is no longer part of the discussion. When God is no longer in the picture, the creator, things go south.
If you want to have your freedom based coalition that is without "God", the other side will defend your right to have it. But at the same time, you'll want to ponder much more deeply your position on having God part of your daily life. I guarantee its only your future at stake.
when I realized long ago
... that the illuminati hate Christianity I realized Christianity must be good deep down at least on a grassroots level { Corporate churches with sell-out pastors who preach "Romans 13" lies are a different story altogether } but the People ... those good decent people you meet at the local church ... they need to know about Dr. Ron Paul, about agenda 21, about crypto-eugenics, and a lot more.
here's the kicker: These folks could turn this GOP trainwreck around by using their strength to get Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul nominated in Tampa. THIS is the key.
Republic Broadcasting best talk radio in the truthosphere
This is a free speech issue
The fact that the owner of Chick Fil-A is opposed to gay marriage and financially supports opposition to gay marriage is his Constitutional right as an American - it is also the right of American consumers to boycott Chick Fil-A for any reason that they might choose - but it is also the right of like-thinking people to turn out to support Chick Fil-A which has happened. The supporters seem to outnumber the boycotters but that does not matter as much as the fact that all have the right to express themselves as they choose fit.
This is such a simple stand up sit down libertarian issue that I cannot perceive that anyone who feels differently is a true libertarian or conservative at heart. This is simply something that should be left to the people without any government interference at all - what Rahm Emanuel and his cohorts threatened in Chicago is what is un-American and contrary to the most basic precepts of freedom.
What's ironic...
is that religion-based homophobes are quick to bring up the free speech clause of the First Amendment and equally quick to ignore the clause that effectively separates church and state.
I don't play, I commission the league.
Have you even read the Constitution?
The words "separation of church and state" are not a clause in the Constitution. However "freedom of speech" is the first one - considered one of the most valued and protected freedoms of all.
It is becoming apparent as to why you are having difficulty with this particular topic.
Whose free speech would YOU like to censor?
Do you simply pick and choose what groups should have their freedoms defended. That would be hypocritical, right?
Frankly, I'm rather sick and tired of hearing your term "homophobe". News alert - just because someone does not approve of something does not mean they are "afraid" of it.
I don't approve of prostitution - but I'm not phobic about prostitutes.
I don't approve of stealing - but I don't have a phobia about thieves.
I don't approve of lying - but no phobia about liars.
I don't approve of homosexuality - but I'm certainly not afraid of, nor do I have a phobia concerning them.
The use of the created false term "homophobes" is more overused and redundant that the use of "freedom of speech".
And in case you weren't aware, the term "homophobe" is not in the Constitution.
What the Constitution says
What the Constitution says expressly on the separation of Church and State is in the 1st Amendment also: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" How did my comment have anything remotely to do with this clause - I was addressing the issue of the attempted muzzling of the Chick Fil-A owner because he said something that offended people - people should have the right to express themselves in a free society without fear of being punished because someone else is offended. If you don't believe this simple guideline then I say most emphatically that you are not a defender of liberty.
Correct
You nailed it
To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!
With what?
An rubber nail? Apparently you don't know a lot about the Constitution either.
I have no clue what you are
I have no clue what you are talking about? Can you clarify? I am responding to the original comment not the comments on the comment. I do not know a lot about the constitution because of what exactly?????? Please enlighten me with your knowledge!
Let me spell it out for you
1) The owner of the company has the right of free speech
2) The LGBT community has the right of free speech
3) The Government has NO right to get involved by banning chick-fil-a from their towns and citys
To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!
Sorry
I mistook your comment for a response to "Pauling is my hobby"'s comment. Sometimes the shaded areas confuse me.
One Man, One Woman Tripe.
The Bible supports incest and polygamy marriage. Also.. according to the Bible, we all came from the SAME TWO people - as a result, every marriage is incestuous (Cain "married" his sister). So who says the Bible defines marriage as ONLY being between one man and one woman?There's never any mention of polygamy being a sin.
Why is this, if marriage is ONLY BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN? Also the gay marriage debate has nothing to do with your religious interpretation of marriage. It's about THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, NOT RELIGIOUS.
It's just b.s. to allow them to condemn and hate a very small minority. Over the years, nothing brings in more money for church's than gay hate propaganda. And we all saw it in action at Chick-Fill-A yesterday. First, the Church's convince their sheep to never RESEARCH or INVESTIGATE homosexuality before condemning it. Then they send them out like foot soldiers to keep that hated minority in line. There's no better way to organize people than for war. In this case, war against a peaceful minority only seeking the same right of marriage the vast majority have.
Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/
In what verse can I find this info?
It amazes me that people who have no understanding of the Bible spew this nonsense. Nowhere will you find that God supported incest, polygam, or any other sin. They are recorded as having occured but, not supported. If you ever read it with understanding, you'd know that there were other people present in the earth during Cain's time or else Cain would not have been able to say that whosoever finding him would kill him unless God placed a mark on him. He had murdered Able so, who was he referring to? Yes, others were present! Please read what you claim to understand before you comment on topics you don't know...
Ah, lets see how they twist and turn now.
They hate gays and that seems to have awoken them and caused the massive migration to Chik Fil A. All the murder and crap happening in the Middle East couldn't get the good Christians off the couch. Disgusting.
They hate gays
That is a supream statement of ignorance. Standing on a principal does not make one a hater. Because an educator wants to bring knowledge to the uneducated does not make him a hater of the ignorant. Many who stand in alliance with family values view homosexuality as abhorrent behaviour but do not hate gays. For gays to say they are entitled to the rights of a traditional marriage is debatable and for you to make a blanket statement saying those on the side of traditional marriage hate gays is truly ignorant.
Steven T
I like chick-fil-a that does
I like chick-fil-a that does not mean I hate gays!
To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!
You seem blinded
by your own bias. I have not read any recent posts on this thread bashing gay people but I've sure read a few bashing Christians. What a hypocrite. Most supporting Chic-fil-a are simply supporting free markets and free speech.
What part of free markets and freedom of speech do YOU not support?
It appears to me you have a lot of hate (and misconceptions yourself)
Homosexuals are conducting their marches and protests. I'm sure you strongly support their rights to gather against Chic-fil-a - right?
And their rights to protest Christians - right?
Homosexuals have just as strong a lobby as do the Christians and I can assure you they collect lots of money for their cause.
How about trying a little live and let live philosophy and get rid of some of YOUR apparent "hate" of a group of people yourself.
FYI The issue at Chic-fil-a is not about "gay marriage"...
Also, the Bible does not support incest or polygamy...the old testament is a history of what actually happened - not necessarily of what God approved. The New Testament speaks against both incest and polygamy.
Do some research of your own before you make broad statements .
The post was directed at
The post was directed at those who went to Chic-Fill-A yesterday endorsing a policy of using government force to deny gay minorities the same right that they (they majority) have. I used my FREE SPEECH in order to advocate agains their beliefs and their actions. And yes the Bible does have a confused position on Incest, but it never says Polygamy is a sin. It never speaks against it but mentions it over and over again. In Biblical times, marriage was a marriage between man and multiple women, family or not. And yes, this issue is ultimately about gay marriage.
Do you think if Chick-Fill-A had come out in support of gay marriage, got threatened by a govenor, those same people would have come out to suppor their free speech? Hell no. Let's not be intellectually dishonest here. One would suspect that a libertarian such as yourself would understand how both sides try to use government for force their views on their enemy. That's preciesly what we saw here. The original protesters had no intention (that I heard of) to use state law to silence Chick-Fill-A. It wasnt until that assclown Emannual (never waste a crisis) openned his moronic mouth that the protest got polutted. So anyway. I said my opinion, you said yours and now I think just about everyone else has too.
Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/
Perhaps then
you should not lump all people into one group. Many people who went to Chic-fil-a yesterday went to defend free markets and freedom of speech as well as unfair attacks as many would destroy the man and his business if possible.
And yes, most of the people who responded to this thread would also defend a gay person who was denied a business permit based on their lifestyle. You are being too judgmental.
This issue is NOT about gay marriage to ME. I don't give a hoot as to who marries who - find a preacher and get it done. However, the government should stay out of marriage. It's not even really about "marriage" - it's about money - and what advantages a governmental "marriage license" can provide. Otherwise, most gays would have no problem shacking up together like many straights are doing.
Speaking of government "force" - the homosexual lobbyist and agenda is just as adamant about getting the "government" on their side as well. It's tit for tat. Is it not true that many homosexuals would like to pass a hate speech bill preventing anyone from voicing any religious views if it disapproves of homosexual lifestyles?
On your Bible topic of polygamy...
The New Testament is very clear on one man and one woman...one husband and one wife - it does not speak in "plurals".
One verse for example - there are many.
"But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB
PS I agree with you on the assclown Emammual - he started it and the media fed the flames. They sure know how to divide the populace.
Attention Christians:
unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that same-sex couples and gay marriage supporters are widely infringing on your life, liberties, property, and/or religious freedom, you can stop with the whole "ALL Y'ALL GODLESS HOMOS IS INTOLERANT OF OUR RELIGION" defense. It drags down the level of discourse on here and makes all of us look bad. Thank you.
I don't play, I commission the league.
what an idiot,
Unless you can prove? What do you think this whole debate is about? Gay rights will directly affect every taxpayer with the cost of paying benefits to same sex partners that are now only available to traditional marriage couples. How hard is that to prove?
Steven T
what an idiot,
Unless you can prove? What do you think this whole debate is about? Gay rights will directly affect every taxpayer with the cost of paying benefits to same sex partners that are now only available to traditional marriage couples. How hard is that to prove?
Steven T
Might I remind you
That this whole controversy popped up due to politicians attempting to strut and garner votes by lashing out at the owners of a resturant. As such, the blame for this controversy lies not on the people showing up in mass to chick a-fila, not the owners of the resuraunt, not the homosexuals, but the politicians.
Proof
The mayor of Chicago just denied a man the right to a business permit based on his stated religious views - thus affecting his property, market freedom, religious freedom, and freedom of speech. Most gays are supporting this particular mayor's view and protesting against the man and his business in an attempt to destroy it if possible.
In addition, they are railing against any people who dare come out in support of the man's business (free market) or the man (free speech)in an attempt to censor "anyone" who disagrees with their view.
Nuff said.
The anti-gay marriage bigots
The anti-gay marriage bigots seek to USE THE POWER OF THE STATE to keep gays from receiving the same legal definition of marriage THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE.
Don't pretend that the use of government force is one sided, it's most decidedly not. Both sides (Democrat/Republican) seek to use government force for their opinions. This is largely why we're libertarian, someone has to be the adults. Also, the original protesters said nothing of using government force. They were just boycotting them. The political whores got involved and that's when it became an "orgy of government force".
And finally, there's one huge contradiction in your final paragraph. You come out in support of "free speech" which attempts to use GOVERNMENT FORCE BY DENYING a very small minority the same legal right of marriage that the majority have.
So you do in fact support government force against peaceful individuals.
Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/
????
The poster asked for proof that anti-gays ever had their freedoms infringed upon. I gave a very good example. Sorry you missed it.
Marriage is not the same as free speech. Marriage is an action - not speech. Marriage also requires a license from the state. Free speech does not and is directly protected in the Constitution. The same for freedom of religion. Sorry that your particular interests do not fall under those conditions but stop attempting to re-interpret the Constitution to fit your agenda.
I don't contradict myself.
Red herring....
Rahm Emanuel's actions are separate from the legality of gay marriage.
How does allowing same-sex marriage DIRECTLY infringe on all Christians' lives, liberty, property, and/or religious freedom?
I don't play, I commission the league.