This was a very interesting column about the recent announcement by Chick-fil-A that they no longer are financially donating to the right wing-organization that is anti gays and lesbian.
First, she is from the South and grew up with this fast food chain. We had one in Lubbock-awful-Texas where I was cursed to be born. I ate at occasionally as a kid and it was good. But I never thought of it as not as good as Whataburger, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Villa or the quasi-fast places like Chinese Kitchen (is it still there?) or a couple of barbeque haunts. Certainly, in my mind, Chick-fil-A never came near to the premier fast food experience of my life: In-N-Out, once I moved to California in 1985.
Second, the writer, Virginia Willis, considers Chick-fil-A to be a cut above the typical fast food chain fare. Willis by the way has a distinguished pedigree having trained at L'Academie de Cuisine and Ecole de Cuisine LaVarenne. For fellow "foodies" who worship the fine art of eating, she poses a very interesting dilemma. The problem is that her passion for the food at the former (apparently) gay-hating Chick-fil-A makes her want to return as a customer. Reading her column also made me want to try it again after several decades. But I feel conflicted just as does this writer and slightly different, yet, for the same reasons.
Eatocracy on CNN: Click-fil-a Controversy Leaves a Bitter Taste for Some Longtime Fans
If you are pro gay, what do you think about this column and the dilemma? Should Chick-fil-A be forgiven? Are they really sincere? If you're a supporter of gay rights and a lover of Chick-fil-A's food, should you be forgiven if you satiate your lust for the food at the food chain since they have offered a quasi mea culpa?
I am a devotee of the great show on tv "What Would You Do?".
What would you do?