I’d say it had no effect whatsoever on how people felt about blue jeans – I never heard anything about this.

After all that, I agree with Timothy on the content of this article and was paraphrasing him for most of the day. This one-day spike of supporters will not offset the number of people who over the long term don’t want to wear the brand of being customers of the anti-gay chicken place and will just consistently, quietly, without making a big deal say “Why don’t we go somewhere else?”

The aldermen and mayors who were going to block CFA from coming in were shameful, yes, but that won’t last as long in people’s minds.

The stunt here was to imbue a political meaning into an ordinary daily act. Now, you were aware that if you wore the same blue jeans that you wore last week, you would be disclosing that you were soft on the gays, and might possibly be gay yourself. On the other hand, if you went out of your way to alter your attire on that day, that too would be a statement about gays. The point was to force people to think about the whole issue in the way that gay people are forced to think about disclosure and their identity every day.

It was an interesting phenomenon and people reacted to it differently. But it is fair to say that in general, it made blue jeans less universally loved and more associated with politics, tedium and contention. A net loss for blue jeans. And I think, thanks to Huckabee and Santorum and FRC and NOM who have created a chicken version of Blue Jeans Day, this affair will be a net loss for Chick Fil A.

And that is important – more important than today’s bump in sales for the chicken filleters. Today’s battle is over an issue that those who oppose us are afraid to articulate.”

A) That’s not entirely true. On facebook and youtube and other social media, there are lots of examples of gay bashing.

b) People who give interviews generally don’t want to paint themselves as too extreme. They have either been trained by media experts or have deliberately decided to give bigotry a pleasant face. That, by the way, is one reason you can’t trust polls. And, besides, in this case, which is fueled by right-wing Christians, there is a long tradition of hating the sin and loving the sinner, so that is what they want to project. All those grinning Southern Baptists deny that they hate homosexuals, just like their grandparents denied they were racists.

c) For a very long time, those opposed to same-sex marriage have been unable to articulate any real reason for their opposition to ssm. They can only talk about their defense of tradition and their religious beliefs. In other words, their opposition to ssm is deeply rooted in homophobia. That, however, does not deprive them of a right to vote.

d) As aloof as you want to be from this controversy, it is one that we need to pay very close attention to. All this chicken stuffing is a demonstration of hatred toward homosexuals. (As if these people ever really cared for free speech for anyone other than themselves.)

I’ve long argued that whether they realize it or not, a lot of mainstream Christians are glad the WBC is out there. Westboro allows the more gentle Christians to say “hey I’m opposed to gay people, but I’m not *that* kind of person.”

Which I just don’t buy. When it comes to gay rights, whether or not a Christian is protesting funerals isn’t important – it’s their opinions that are important.

And besides, isn’t it always conservatives who are bemoaning the fact that moderate Muslims aren’t calling out the crazy Muslims? Why can’t they do some self-reflection and see how they’re not doing the exact same thing?