I do not believe Chik Fil A has donated money to anti anything causes, although what an owner does with his money is his business in my opinion.

Here is an example of them opening on a Sunday to give food after Orlando shooting Web Link

And here they are giving free food after hurricane Web Link

Let's have less protests against a company that treats its employees well and goes out of its way to help the community in which it does business. I hope we have this very worthy business doing well.

I am looking foreword to welcoming ChickFilA to Redwood City. I recently ate a delicious meal in the one in Mountain View and was very impressed by how clean it was and how friendly they service was. Just like going to in N out Burger the place is clean, the bathrooms are clean, and the service people are well groomed and personable .Hooray for them. I will be one of their first customers with my family .

Why didn't you ask this question about the Sunnyvale location, operating for years and going strong?

If you are going to frame the chain as "controversial" from the very title of this article, why not be a little more objective -- for example, look more dispassionately at the mentioned "controvery," which is itself highly controversial. The first commenter already touched on some of that.

I've never eaten at a Chick-Fil-A, but I note that the first Yelp review surfacing on a Yelp query just now about the Sunnyvale location is an enthusiastic endorsement from a customer self-identifying as gay. (As if further evidence were even needed about the shallowness and opportunism of any "identity politics.")

Supervisor Canepa's attempt to cow Chick-fil-A into abandoning their planned restaurant shows a stunning lack of concern for constitutional protections for free speech.

San Antonio's similar move was widely decried as unconstitutional by legal scholars (Web Link and Supervisor Canepa's move indicates that he is either oblivious to his legal obligations as an elected representative, or that he prefers to subvert constitutionality to partisan politics.

I would urge San Mateo county residents to call his office and share their thoughts on this clear breach of his duties: (650) 363-4565.

Someone is using my usual "handle." I usually post as "Neighbor, a resident of another community." I just want to make it clear that his/her opinion is diametrically opposed to mine.

Boycotts are not illegal. And boycotts of businesses that support discrimination against any group are un-American. Some of the profits you give Chick-fil-A are transferred to organizations lobbying against gay rights. Therefore, I support boycotting Chick-fil-A

Neighbor of Woodside School, nobody is suggesting that boycott are illegal. Feel free to not patronize them. You might also want to research some of the charitable and community support that was mentioned in a previous post. I'm guessing that the Chick-fil-A company has probably supported, employed, and fed more LGBTQ people than you have. So please let me know what kind of work you do, so I can boycott you.

Original "neighbor" poster here. There's nothing wrong with people choosing not to patronize a business. But Supervisor Canepa is a governmental agent and is lobbying hard against a business based on its speech (or the speech of its owners).

This is unconstitutional behavior, and if the roles were flipped (i.e., a restaurant owned by outspoken advocates of gun control being run out of town by a Republican politician) you might find that you appreciate the limits our Constitution puts on governmental power.

If people are going to mount some kind of boycott of something, they should go whole hog on divestment of universities, etc, in for-profit health insurance, until we get all-non-profit health insurance (which is one of the ways other first-world nations achieve universal low-cost healthcare, it isn't all single payer out there). Just leverage all the health insurance companies to no longer be investment vehicles but to just be involved in people's health care. There is lots of evidence that that's really enough, and people have the power to make it happen.

I don't agree with the man's views, but rather than going after his business, why not engage on the level of his religious beliefs? I wonder why no one ever argues the very strong case that the Bible really is silent on healthy same-sex relationships (the clobber versus having to assume a negative interpretation to begin with, and ignore the historical context and translations). For example, Jesus never said anything about gays, but he did say don't get divorced. I wonder why no one asked the cake baker who wouldn't serve gays if he asks if people are divorced or on their second marriage, because it would be against their religion to serve them, too?

I just think it's better to get to know people and then engage them. There are religious denominations who don't interpret the Bible as condemning gay relationships, and who believe the Bible tells them to stand up for the oppressed. The Bible also says that in the year of the Jubilee (every 8th year?), you're not supposed to make a profit from selling food to the poor. I wonder does he have a corporate habit of feeding all poor people for cost then?

Not to mention that the overriding commandment per Jesus is to love one's neighbor as oneself - S Huckabee seemed to think not being served because of someone else's beliefs was a capital offense, so apparently she doesn't want to be treated that way, either.

And then there's all the stuff in the Bible against hypocrisy and love of money (but people on the right figure if they lie to themselves about hypocrisy or point fingers at others as being worse -- both condemned in the Bible -- they don't have to confront their own.)

I really think people are losing an opportunity to keep having the discussion in a way the religious people who have been used, unopposed, by political powers for their financial benefit (also something Jesus would have condemned) could appreciate. It's been decades of lies and false framing, it won't change overnight.

Embrace the chance, don't just push people in ways that make the feel even more justified to be self-righteous and judgmental.

[Post removed.]

@James,
Oh please. "Rampaging"? Um, I think the boycott is because of the allegedly "Christian" businesses not behaving in such a Christ-like manner and being intolerant in a way that hurts and excludes people. That's not very Christian at least according to the Bible I read.

The Bible says, "For the love of money is the root of all evil" (the second half of the verse alluding to what it does to make you err from the faith). I don't see any of these so-called Christians up in arms about anything related to, oh, greed, bearing false witness, adultery, etc etc. In fact, "Christians", through their new obsequious worship of a political party, have made money and golden calves their God, and that and intolerance (which Jesus speaks against, by the way) are their witness to the world.

"Rampaging"? I think lying to yourself counts as false witness, too.

The Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged", "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.""But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." and don't forget Shakespeare “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Be careful quoting the Bible unless you understand the context.

I mean, rather than protesting against the "intolerance", I think people should start a campaign of sending Bible verses to the White House and to the corporate office to remind them of what is actually in the Bible. Like pick a certain verse that is relevant to the news of the day, and hundreds of thousands of people send it as an act of protest to remind those in power of what's actually in the Bible (as opposed to how they're using it). And send it to the media as well. The Bible was misused to support slavery, in the same way it's used against gays, when the thrust of the entire text supported the abolitionists and supports loving our neighbor as ourselves.

When the Bible get misused to keep the sheep in line, such as the public dog-whistle prayers, start a campaign to send what it actually says. Like remind people what the whole deal about the "Sabbath" is in the Bible (hint: something to do with Creation, and why people who claim to believe in Creation shouldn't be the ones most trying to destroy it, but the opposite).

For example, when certain political leaders make a big deal about prayer (which you know they never do except as a political move), send the verse from Matthew, attributed to Jesus: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father..."

In other words, don't be a religious hypocrite who wears your "faith" on your sleeve. Don't pray in public to look all pious. And, don't be a religious hypocrite.

Let him open in RWC, and then Big Time remind him of the part about not making money from selling food to the poor during Jubilee... honestly, there is sooo much good fodder in the Bible against the religious hypocrites, I just really don't get why people would want to make themselves look like the bad guys for no gain rather than just relentlessly reminding the guy of the good/main parts of the Bible he conveniently overlooks, like sacrificial love, forgiveness, not being self-rightous, being our brother's keeper (regardless of sexual orientation, clearly). There's even a special Bible published recently that has all the passages related to peace and social justice highlighted for your convenience. If you want to protest, just use the words of the actual leader of the Church, Jesus, to remind them of what they really claim to believe. And keep at it.

When Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself (and said it was a COMMANDMENT, not a suggestion), and the disciples asked him who constituted a neighbor, he told the parable of the Good Samaritan...

"Be careful quoting the Bible unless you understand the context."

Bring it on. I'm tired of the Bible being used to prop up a decidedly un-Christian ideology and behavior, and destroying the witness of Christ in the world to enrich a few.

Hooray for Chic-a-filet...

Brother's Keeper

When the Bible instituted marriage it was to propagate the earth.

The Bible says in Genesis, male and female, he created them. It also says Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto her ... , and will join with his wife, and the two will become one flesh. ... unto him, Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house? and And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Marriage was never about love, it was about sex and about populating the earth with new life.

Jesus said "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples,

St. Paul says Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

The Bible says very little about homosexuality, but the little it says is talking about prostitution, promiscuity and other forms of deviation from the norm of a loving relationship. There is nothing, in my reading at least, about loving same sex relationships or the inclination of preferring same sex to opposite sex relationships. For this reason, I think it is wise to keep this out of our discussion on Christian actions in our present topic.

It is important to remember that Jesus primarily spoke to people rather than national leaders. He did say, render to Caesar that which is Caesars, but he never made political statements against either the local or empirical leadership. He spoke against religious leaders when he saw them taking their religion to extremes rather than understanding the need for compassion. He also said that Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them.

St. Paul spoke of this too. Since God will impartially judge each person according to his deeds, we must persevere in doing good.

I won't speak to the political religious Christian bashing or to the motivation of other Christian people either in or out of politics.

However, I will say that from my own perspective, the actions of a company that has always been seen to be fair in its interpretation of the law in its daily operations, has always been seen to be fair in its treatment of employees and community, and has made its mantra of helping others in need either in time of hunger or tragedy a priority, means that in my book Chik Fil A is a business that we would be honored to have in our community.

If people wish to eat there and buy their food they will do well. If on the other hand people decide to boycott and eat elsewhere for whatever reason, the business will be unprofitable and eventually close. I suggest we let the market forces prevail and see what happens. People make decisions on where to do business and the forces of public opinion will determine whether any business does well. After all, if this is replacing a MacDonald's what does it say about market trends and MacDonalds?

Bible discussions are all well and good. The Bible has been around for a long time and so much of what we consider right and wrong comes from it.

"“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?"

@Resident,
"The Bible says very little about homosexuality, but the little it says is talking about prostitution, promiscuity and other forms of deviation from the norm of a loving relationship. There is nothing, in my reading at least, about loving same sex relationships or the inclination of preferring same sex to opposite sex relationships. For this reason, I think it is wise to keep this out of our discussion on Christian actions in our present topic.
"
You and I are in agreement on this, and apparently you have read your Bible instead of getting your beliefs from the zeitgeist.

But it IS relevant. Those misused "clobber" verses are what stir up this whole gay-bashing bent that the CEO was a part of.

The LAW says that privately owned businesses of public accommodation, like restaurants, cannot discriminate. The LAW. That is relevant here. The law gets used as an excuse by those on the religious right to ignore all the stuff the Bible says about welcoming the stranger and treating aliens in our land WELL. (Forgetting for a moment all the cringeworthy misused stuff Jeff Sessions got to air about following the law.)

See, the trouble here is all the dogwhistle stuff going out to sheep, which translates to political power. The CEO gets people lined out the door who think they are making a religious statement for his hate and attitude that he justifies with his religion. People really do not appreciate how much the media get used to propogate ideas that really aren't in the Bible, and thus they get away with illegal and un-Christian things in the name of Christ.

The baker who didn't want to make a cake for lesbians said it was because of his religion, but I want to know why no one challenged him on it -- because there is literally only ONE verse in the Bible that could even be interpreted against lesbians, and you have to cross your eyes and already assume the biased interpretation to get there (and even the most aggressively twisted translations are still arguable), plus to take that interpretation of that one verse goes against the whole intent of the New Testament.

So the baker is using his religion to justify his prejudices, fine, but since he's doing that to break the law, that should only fly if the religion really supports that conclusion.

On the face of it, Jesus said zero about homosexuality, but he did regularly dine with people that everyone else found reprehensible, represented sacrificial love, and he also said don't get divorced. That's why the long history of the church in Europe of not allowing divorce.

(Parenthetically, I would add that conditions have changed since the whole thing about populating the earth. God also said remember the Sabbath to keep it holy -- because CREATION was so hard for God, he had to rest, and the whole thing with Noah was to avoid having to do THAT again. We're supposed to remember once a week that Creation was so hard for God He wanted us to remember that once a week! THAT hasn't changed, but the unpopulated earth has. I don't think the Bible was created to be a fixed document to be blindly followed over a cliff, including the destruction of Creation, but rather, as a living guide to help us focus on the core intent, as you alluded to.)

Now, if the baker regularly asked his clients whether they were divorced and turned down their business for second marriages (unless they were marrying their brother's widow, per the Biblical instructions -- which, were not a commandment to always marry your brother's widow but about social justice because in those days the widow and children would have otherwise starved -- but hey, let's be consistent with the literalist to justify his claim), that would be one thing.

But if the baker is using his religion to justify violating one of the two main commandments of Jesus, which Jesus said all the commandments could really be distilled into, i.e., this is how they should be interpreted (love your God with all your heart/mind/soul, love your neighbor as yourself), then shouldn't the baker have to show that what he is doing is really from the religion and not just using the religion to justify unlawful behavior the religion really condemns?

I am in agreement with you that it's counterproductive to block the business. On the other hand, I think people should take the owner to task for his discriminatory behavior and go toe-to-toe about the religion in the public sphere.

See, the problem is that most people don't read their Bibles. They hear Christie Brinkley taking a clobber verse out of context, and think, "I'm a Christian, that must be what I believe." They don't read their Bibles from cover to cover as you and I have, and realize, oh, I'm interpreting this to justify my hurtful prejudices and thus violating many tenets of the Bible and pronouncements of Christ.

At least let that discussion happen in the open, too, not just the extreme interpretations, for the sake of the many people who get their beliefs from the public interpretation. Again, I'm saying, I don't believe it's a good thing to prevent the business from opening. Instead, I think people should address what they're concerned about, that religion is being used to justify, using the many things the religion speaks against it.

(I think what all these politicians forget at their peril, is that these hyper-political Christians will one day wake up to the fact that they care more about their religion than worshipping the political golden calves. But we don't have to wait for that day to remind the golden calve worshippers of it.)

Without reminding myself of all the details of the baker and the cake, I think you will find that the baker had no trouble with serving the gay customer. He did have problems with decorating a wedding cake for a gay couple.

If he had refused to serve the customer because of his sexual orientation, he would indeed have been in the wrong. The fact that it was the cake he was objecting to rather than the customer is important to remember.

With that, I think I have said all I shall say.

Personally, I would not eat at a chik fil a. Regardless of how much money they have donated to charity, the have also made numerous donations to groups with an anti -LGBTQ agenda. However I am not against them opening a location in RWC. Let them open the location and let the people decide if they want to eat there or not.

Just a reminder to those on both side of the debate that not everybody cares about what Jesus (assuming he has really existed, which is likely, but not a sure fact) said. And also that the bible is an old book written and rewritten by men who reflected the poor level of human knowledge at the time, and that is therefore full of stories that have since been proven impossible by science (e.g. we now know that the world what not created in 7 days, that we are not all descended from one unique couple such as Adam & Eve). As Einstein said it, the bible is "a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends." So who cares what's in it!

I think Jesus would enjoy having lunch with his Apostles at Chick-fill-A and with multiple locations, it would provide an added dining convenience to their travels while spreading the gospel of Christ.

He would also enjoy going to the Fish Market & various sushi bars.

Redwood City has just kicked off it's summer programs which are attended by thousands of people and are the most popular in the bay area. I am up there now most Friday nights and tell you that "politics" is verboten in RWC. The most diverse group possible from FB, Oracle, SU extended campus, and agricultural and commercial bay workers. A mixed bunch but it all works. Also a major biker's club with all of their high end bikes lined up for review. Also heavy police presence.

This PAW writer has a tendency to use food to politicize topics with uninformed slants. No one in RWC could care less about any food type there and all are welcome. And the RWC managers probably do not appreciate this "take' on their city. And the general population does not want politics to interfere with the running of their city. YEAH RWC - love you.

As a side note I grew up in LA in West Hollywood. What you learn is in complex cities every group has a section that serves their cultural background and desires. You go to the businesses that service those needs. You can get any cake you want when you go to the section of the larger city that is your section and give your business to those who support your POV. You do not shove your POV down the throats of people who have their own issues.

I am concerned by the title of this article and it's intent.
1. Palo Alto has no end of problems in running this city and we talk about this city's problems - or this counties problems. We are in Santa Clara County which does not function the same way as San Mateo County. Much to a lot of people's distress. They run their county in a far more reasonable manner.
2. This article is stirring the pot in a separate city and county. It does no favor to the RWC city or SM county to stir up protestors which then leads to police problems and people getting hurt.
3. RWC works to maintain civility and safety for all of the people who come to enjoy the city. As to the city individual who contacted this paper I am sure that his constituents will note that next time he runs for office. People in that city are looking for safety - not political hooligans trying to cause trouble.
4. People come home to their cities nd do not want to be beat on the heads with opinions spun up by other city papers.

Just like to add that the San Francisco Airport is in San Mateo County and they can put anyone in their airport cafes that they want. One individual running around threatening every one else is going to end up in a law suit.

> This PAW writer has a tendency to use food to politicize topics with uninformed slants.

> 2. This article is stirring the pot in a separate city and county.

> I think Jesus would enjoy having lunch with his Apostles at Chick-fill-A...

I don't recall any mention of Jesus eating chicken in the New Testament...just stuff like bread, wine and maybe some grilled fish caught from the Sea of Galilee?

Being Jewish, I imagine he also stayed clear of shellfish and pork.

Being a man of peace, he probably would have also eaten tofu had it been available at the time.

"San Francisco Airport is in San Mateo County"

SFO is run by The City. SMC has virtually no influence on SFO.

Back to topic: chickfilla is overrated. Doesn't do a thing for me; so many better choices.

@ Resident,
"I think you will find that the baker had no trouble with serving the gay customer. He did have problems with decorating a wedding cake for a gay couple."

That is a distinction without a difference. A bakery is a place of "public accommodation" which means if they serve people at the counter or serve them by making cakes, they cannot discriminate.

The baker was asserting that there was a conflict with his freedom of religion, but no one asked whether the behavior was reasonably within the exercise of the religion or using the religion to support a pre-existing prejudice, which would not be a legitimate exercise of freedom of religion to avoid following laws.

Given that there is only one verse in the entire Bible about lesbians, and given that you have to already believe a healthy same-sex relationship is wrong in order to interpret it as applying to lesbians the way it gets used, and given that the Bible is so clear in so many other ways about loving others (regardless of who they are), there should have been some examination of whether that could even be considered an exercise of religious freedom. Again, Christianity was misused to support slavery once, even that that interpretation is inconsistent with the Bible as a whole. Jesus said nothing about gays but did tell people not to get divorced -- did the cake baker turn down all wedding cake business from divorced people as well? Plus, Jesus served all kinds of people, he never said he wouldn't because it didn't fit with his "religious" beliefs. I believe this is why he made a point of saying that all commandments could be condensed to the two, which are, btw, inconsistent with the baker's behavior.

In fact, there is a particular passage in the New Testament where he disciples asked Jesus whether they should eat the offerings to idols, and Jesus gave a surprising answer, telling his disciples basically to not be so self-righteous over something like this because it turns people away from the faith for no good reason. Christians end up acting self-righteous in ways that hurt their witness in the world (sound familiar) and dilutes focus from the core tenets of the faith.

The above thread brings up an interesting issue -- the story of Jesus being moved to physical violence by people using the synagogue for their own personal monetary gain comes to mind, but I am struggling to think of where Jesus spent time dining with religious hypocrites. He dined with a lot of people who were considered untouchable, but seemed to spend more time condemning the religious hypocrites.

@Rational,
Freedom of religion is in the founding of this nation. You are free to not care about WWJD. But the people who DO care have become co-opted by political leaders (the "Southern Strategy" of Republicans) getting the "faithful" to follow religious leaders as if they are Jesus, despite behavior and beliefs that are far, far more against the teachings of Christ than anything related to healthy same-gender marriages.

You don't have to care about that either, except that it's part of the "Permanent Republican Majority" movement of the last 40 years, which let's face it, is a euphemism for destroying Democracy, mostly by persistent and deft lying (Reagan's own budget director admitted the trickle-down theories were just a trojan horse without substantiation to cut top tax rates, but that's the tip of the ice berg), and using tricks and scheming in order to avoid having to submit to the refining benefits of checks and balances and honest competition. (Ironic, isn't it.) The party of Lincoln and Eisenhower is long dead at these "neo-Republicans'" hands and we are all the poorer for it.

So, while you may not wish to know what Jesus of Nazareth stood for, you probably should care that millions of people have been turned toward worshipping various golden calves in His name, and that the utter lack of reminding them of WJWAD (what Jesus would actually do) per the scriptures has a big impact on all of our lives (and their witness, which they should care about if they claim to be faithful).

I mean, where would we be in terms of the environment if people actually were constantly reminded of what "stewardship" of Creation really means or serving the poor? I don't think most Christians believe the literal interpretation of the age of the earth, but the ones on the right hear a lot of lies and false framing unopposed for years and years about climate change with no one reminding them of the context in the scriptures, no one counters the political twisted interpretation of the scriptures, so they are easy pickings. For example, when someone tells them that the media are lying to them, it's easy to believe because no one has bothered to counter the political lies for so long, including that the right get away with interpreting the scriptures any way they want so long as the party dangles a few distorted culture wars issues.

Again, this ends up affecting us all, the faithful and the citizen, our children and the rest of life on earth, everyone.

Why couldn't the gay couple simply have had the baker prepare their wedding cake & then they could have placed the gay figurines onto the cake themselves?

It doesn't take rocket science to accomplish that feat.

^^^^the couple that brought suit were just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

they should have simply gone to another baker or not mentioned their sexuality as no one needs to know.

> or not mentioned their sexuality as no one needs to know

Yes. Maybe one of the gay men could go in drag and fool them! And if they're not white, just order online - easy peasy! If they have the wrong last name (Rosencranz? Mohamed?), just change it to 'Smith'.

See how easy it is to get around ingrained bigotry!!!

> It doesn't take rocket science to accomplish that feat

Geez, the privilege is stunning.

This is just another politician trying to fake a crisis for his own political benefit. This is simple, if you don't like a business because of some perceived belief don't shop there.

I believe in rights for all. But I also believe people are free to think whatever they want, as long as they respect others and do not hurt anyone. Chick Fil A has the right to believe what they want. They are not hurting anyone. People should stop being so sensitive and move along. People of all walks of life can walk into Chick Fil A and be treated in a proper manner and no one is telling them anything negative as compared to those who complain about Chick Fil A. These folks live with the motto Do As I Say or else you are wrong and bad. As the resident of Woodside stated - This is simple, if you don't like a business because of some perceived belief don't shop there.

FINALLY. I don't have to go out of my way to get a big juicy chicken sandwich with some Polynesian sauce, fries and a sweet tea. They can't get rid of this McDonald's fast enough. This McDonald's location has some of the worst customer service. They get my order wrong consistently and never say “thank you" or “have a nice day". I've even received an eye roll when I asked for some sauce FOR MY CHICKEN TENDERS!