Cocktail Recipes, Spirits, and Local Bars

Chick Fil-A is Headed for Big Apple and Several Other Cities

Chick Fil-A is Headed for Big Apple and Several Other Cities

The Georgia-based chain will open 108 new locations in 2014, including several in New York City

Chick Fil-A is opening 108 new locations in 2014, while KFC is testing a chicken sandwich restaurant in Texas.

Chick-Fil-A, the popular and politically conservative Atlanta-based fast food restaurant, has announced aggressive plans for expansion in 2014. The company plans to open 108 more locations this year alone, “most of them urban and a good chunk of them in New York City,” the company told USA Today.

In 2012, Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy made a series of public statements against same-sex marriage and donated several million dollars to organizations with anti-gay social and political beliefs.

In a comparatively progressive turn, Cathy announced that the company planned on turning its focus toward healthier ingredients and menu variety.

“I’m going to leave it to politicians and others to discuss social issues,” said Cathy.

Although Chick-Fil-A already has one location in Greenwich Village, it is only open to students of New York University. The announcement has already stirred up considerable attention and mixed emotions on social media outlets.

Those delicious homophobic Chick-Fil-A sandwiches about to cause so much internal NYC Angst b

— Desus (@desusnice) April 8, 2014

People not gonna act right in NYC when chik fil a opens up lol

— Zeke (@ZSoloDolo) April 8, 2014

OH MY GOD. CHICK-FIL-A IS COMING TO NEW YORK CITY. I'M CRYING TEARS OF JOY. THANK YOU SWEET BABY JESUS.

— Brittnee Anderson (@_iambrittnee) April 9, 2014

Meanwhile, KFC seems to be testing out its own response to the beloved fried chicken sandwich with Super Chix in Arlington, Texas. Although a spokesman for KFC parent company Yum! Brands said that Super Chix was not ready to do battle with similar restaurants in the United States, who knows what will happen if the spot does well? Only time will tell if Super Chix will reveal itself to be the chicken sandwich restaurant that Gotham needs.

Karen Lo is an associate editor at The Daily Meal. Follow her on Twitter @appleplexy.


Heart, Soul & Chicken Salad

Welcome to Chicken Salad Chick, where we offer delicious, scratch-made, Southern-style, craveable favorites served from the heart. We don&rsquot believe in strangers, just friends we haven&rsquot met yet&mdashso come in and enjoy! You&rsquoll find fresh, healthy fare and gracious hospitality at our chicken salad restaurant. We know everyone has a different idea of what makes the perfect chicken salad recipe, so we&rsquove created several options. If you&rsquore a chicken salad lover, you&rsquoll discover something here to satisfy your tastes. From simple to savory to fruity and nutty or even a little spicy, you can pick the chick that suits your mood. We have over a dozen varieties of chicken salads along with pimento cheese or egg salad, served by the scoop, sandwich, or bowl. You&rsquoll also find delicious sides, soups, and desserts in addition to the scoops of chicken salad that started it all. Bringing along your little chicks? We have a great kids menu. For quick, amazing meals we even offer convenient carryout.

Stop in today or order online for chicken salad made fresh and served from the heart.

Always Made Fresh

At Chicken Salad Chick, we use fresh ingredients and time-honored traditions. We take great pride in making our flavors by hand each morning, using only premium chicken tenderloins, and our special combinations of sweet and savory ingredients.

True Southern Favorite

In Southern homes, chicken salad is just as much a staple as flour and sugar. It brings with it feelings of contentment and familiarity. At Chicken Salad Chick, you&rsquoll feel the same warmth and comfort you would feel enjoying a meal in the home of a gracious friend.

Friendly Service

While you are here, consider yourself an honorary chick! We believe food brings people together, so we always provide service with a smile and aim for you to leave our chicken salad restaurants happy with your meal and refreshed from time well spent.

In A Hurry Ready to Go
Quick Chicks

Craving Credits Program

Follow Your Appetite & Earn Rewards

Download the Chicken Salad Chick App from the App Store or Google Play! Every time you enjoy our mouthwatering menu of fresh, scratch-made chicken salad, pimento cheese, and other favorites, you’ll earn one point for every dollar you spend. Redeem them for special discounts, free food items, and fun Chick gear. At Chicken Salad Chick, we love to share the love. Get the App, scan your barcode, and start earning points today!


So what's the catch?

While Chick-fil-A's franchise fee is low, the ongoing fees are higher than those charged by many of its rivals, and they start adding up on day 1.

According to the FDD, the total initial investment in a new Chick-fil-A franchise costs between $582,360 and $2 million, which starts to bring it somewhat more into line with competing brands.

By contrast with McDonald's, which charges an ongoing monthly service fee equal to 4% of gross sales, Chick-fil-A franchisees pay a "Base Operating Service Fee" of 15% of sales, and an additional fee of 50% of net profits.

Both McDonalds and Chick-fil-A charge rent, with golden arches owners paying an average of 10.7% of sales in rent costs, while Chick-fil-A limits its rent charges to 6% of sales.

While a Chick-fil-A costs less up-front, over time franchisees end up paying a lot more to the company to operate the business. And that's not all.

Beyond the unusual fee structure, there are several other items that might give a prospective franchisee pause.

For starters, Chick-fil-A prohibits most of its franchisees from opening multiple units, which can limit potential profits, and franchisees must devote their full time and attention to operating the actual business.

Franchisees are also prohibited from owning or working in any other fast food business within five miles of their Chick-fil-A location.

The company says this limitation is meant to enable franchisees to be intimately involved in the day-to-day operations of their restaurants, and it encourages franchisees to be actively involved in the communities where they live and work.

"Chick-fil-A operators must be as comfortable rolling up their sleeves in the kitchen as they are shaking hands in the dining room," the spokesperson said.

Another issue that may be of concern regards franchisees' actual control over their business.

Franchisees are business owners by definition, but Chick-fil-A's FDD prevents franchisees from exercising a key benefit of ownership: selling the business.

No transfer or sale of a Chick-fil-A business is allowed, not even family inheritance in the event of death or disability.

On the other hand, Chick-fil-A reserves the right to terminate any franchisee's agreement without cause with 30-days notice, or with cause for infractions such as subjecting the brand to "scandal," filing for bankruptcy, opening your restaurant on a Sunday or Christmas Day, or if your operations are "frustrated" by labor union activity.


The Briefing

It’s Tuesday, May 10, 2016. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

Disappearance of civil discourse: GOP front-runner insults evangelical leader Russell Moore

At this crucial point in the 2016 U.S. presidential race, it is clear that America’s political system has taken a turn for the worse. The latest evidence is the fact that civil discourse itself seems to be disappearing from the midst of American society even as this race that is so important for the American future shapes up around us. The latest evidence of this comes in a statement made by Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump. It is clear that Donald Trump will have a great deal of difficulty winning the support of many American evangelicals, including prominent evangelical leaders. In Sunday’s edition of the New York Times, Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, offered a rather stinging critique of the Trump candidacy, and he did so in an opinion piece that was brought to the attention of the nation, at least in part by none other than Donald Trump himself.

The morning after the opinion piece ran in the New York Times, Donald Trump ran to Twitter and issued a statement in which he said,

“Russell Moore is a truly terrible representative of Evangelicals and all of the good they stand for. A nasty guy with no heart!”

The interesting thing about that is that Donald Trump once again has demonstrated that he does not run into civil discourse and argument, but rather he runs into insult, which seems to be an instinct and also into a denial of civil discourse. When he had the opportunity for a thoughtful response, Donald Trump dismissed the response instead, rejecting both the message and the messenger. What makes this really interesting is that in this 2016 race we now have the emergence of something that would have been inconceivable, not merely unexpected, in any recent American presidential cycle. Here we have the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party openly criticizing a major American evangelical leader.

Now when you look at recent American presidential elections, there has been a congruence between the worldview of American evangelicals on many issues, especially pressing social issues, and the Republican Party. But now, Donald Trump in essence is telling American evangelicals to get with the program, his program, or to meet his opposition or, in this case, his outright public dismissal. The interesting thing about this, of course, is that the question of evangelical voting in the 2016 election is an open question. What is clear is that we are entering entirely uncharted terrain for American politics and in particular for American evangelicals. As I have often said, and will have to say again, evangelicals are now facing a far more complex political equation than we have been accustomed to or trained to think about in any recent American presidential election. We’re going to have to think in very careful terms. We’re going to have to weigh issues that have not been required of us before, and we need to keep in mind that this is merely the 10 th of May there are months and months yet before us in the 2016 race, which means there are revelations undoubtedly still to be discovered and arguments still to be made—and insults still to be traded.

At this point it is fairly impossible to overestimate the complexity and the uncertainty of the 2016 race. If indeed the race comes down to the Democratic nominee being Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, and Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican nominee, we’re going to be finding ourselves in the midst of a political situation in the United States the likes of which has not been seen. And in this case when we say has not been seen, we’re not talking about in recent years, we’re not talking about even in the past several decades we’re talking about the entire American experiment, and that’s saying a very great deal.

When you go back to the founding era, it is clear that politics, electoral politics, presidential elections, brought out both the best and the worst in the American people. We’re about to find out where 2016 is going to rank in terms of the history of American elections. But at this point recent developments make clear that what should be a huge and hugely important exchange of ideas, a contrast and conflict of proposals and policies and outlooks in terms of the world, may evolve into nothing more than name-calling, the exchange of insult, and a political morass of confusion that will not only weaken the United States, but could threaten the entire project of being a representative democracy. To put the point straightforwardly, it is difficult to imagine any recent American presidential candidate, certainly the standard-bearer of either of the two major parties in this country, going to Twitter or in any sense in public making statements such as which we’re now accustomed to hearing or to reading from Donald Trump. But the 2016 race is hardly over. For that matter this week is not even over.

DOJ doubles down on coercion in countersuit against North Carolina over bathroom bill

Next, shifting to North Carolina and to issues of national concern, yesterday on The Briefing we discussed the fact that the Obama Administration’s Justice Department had demanded that the State of North Carolina surrender in terms of the moral revolution and rescind the law recently adopted by the State known as House Bill 2. That stipulated that persons must use, in public facilities, the bathrooms that are designated for the sex in which they were born. Now you have the Justice Department tightening the argument, and we now know that yesterday the Governor of North Carolina announced that his state would file suit against the Obama Administration and against the Department of Justice in terms of the action threatened against the state. The suit filed by North Carolina claims that the Justice Department is misreading Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit says that the federal government is now not only abusing its authority, but making up the law in terms of reading a piece of legislation written back in 1964 that clearly had nothing to do with the transgender issue in terms of ordering the State of North Carolina to amend its law having to do with bathrooms and gender assignment.

What we’re seeing here is a colossal battle of worldviews that is taking the shape of contrary and opposing lawsuits established both by the State of North Carolina and now by the Justice Department. On Monday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated that in light of the Governor’s lawsuit—a lawsuit we should point out that is joined by other suits filed by North Carolina legislators—that in light of those suits the Justice Department would go ahead in terms of pressing its case against North Carolina. The Department had given the state until yesterday to make a decision about how the state would respond to the federal demand. As you would expect, there are some interesting twists to this tale.

The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is herself a native of North Carolina and secondly, as might be expected, the Justice Department, the Obama Administration, they’re making the case that the situation here in North Carolina related to LGBT issues is exactly parallel to the civil rights issues of the 1960s and thus to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As we said yesterday, this sets up an inevitable conflict not only between the federal government and the State of North Carolina, not only between the U.S. Justice Department and the University of North Carolina, but between two very opposed worldviews in terms of the United States, coming down to the question of bathrooms. This is where the moral revolutionaries run right up against a sense of public opposition to the inevitable consequences of what this revolution will bring, right down to who should use which bathroom.

One crucial point made by the Governor of North Carolina in filing this lawsuit is that Congress alone has the authority to amend or revise the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the federal government were to do that and the legislation were to be enacted, the State of North Carolina concedes it would be in a very different situation. But the Governor of North Carolina is pressing an essential point here having to do not only with bathrooms, but to the separation of powers and to the boundaries of constitutional government. The State of North Carolina is making the very important point that the President of the United States, his Administration, and in particular the Justice Department, that they do not have the right to redefine the law without clear congressional approval or congressional intent. As is so often the case, the presenting issue, in this case a law concerning bathrooms, turns out to be embedded with a far larger issue, which is the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the limitations of the Executive branch and its authority, and whether or not we actually trust that Congress itself has the authority according to the Constitution to adopt such laws.

NYC Mayor calls for boycott of Chick-fil-A over owners' beliefs on biblical marriage

But next, shifting the scene to New York City, it is clear that the moral revolutionaries will not allow any opposition, even in terms of opinion or conviction, to the moral revolutionary tenets that they are pressing, especially when it comes to the LGBT issues central to this sexual and moral revolution. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board noted yesterday, one of the latest examples of this kind of moral coercion was brought by the Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio. As they wrote,

“Progressives want to politicize everything, even chicken sandwiches. Witness New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign to get his fellow citizens to boycott the Chick-fil-A restaurants that are opening around the Big Apple.”

The background of this is actually several years old—a controversy that emerged having to do with Chick-fil-A when it was clear that moral revolutionaries across this nation, especially more liberal cities like Chicago and now New York City, have opposed the company simply because the founding family behind it holds to a traditional understanding of marriage. There is no accusation that Chick-fil-A has in any way discriminated against any customer in any sense. But last week, Mayor de Blasio said,

“Chick-fil-A is anti-LGBT. I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorker to patronize them. But they do have a legal right.”

As the Editors of the Journal say,

“Good to know he isn’t trying to ban the business, though [as they point out] give him time.”

A Chick-fil-A spokesperson responded by saying,

“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

But the Editors are absolutely right when they write this crucial paragraph, and I quote,

“Mr. de Blasio’s real objection is that the company’s owners won’t conform to his political views. The Supreme Court has said that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, and transgender bathrooms are proliferating, but that isn’t enough for progressives. They also want to stigmatize and punish anyone who disagrees with them.”

That is the crucial argument the Editors make, and it is exceedingly important and timely. Because what we are now witnessing in terms of the change taking place around us in this society is that those who believe themselves to be on the winning side of this moral revolution want to silence those who disagree, not merely to win victories in the law and in the courts, but actually to silence any kind of opposition. And that includes, we should note, any opposition that is rooted in Christian conviction. You’ll note that the Mayor of New York City is not accusing Chick-fil-A of discrimination in any way, merely to the fact that the owners, the family behind the business, hold to a traditional, biblical understanding of marriage. And that in itself, according to the Mayor of New York City, is patently unacceptable.

We simply have to note there’s another very important irony here. The fact is that just about any observer will tell you that the Chick-fil-A location in Manhattan is so busy that the lines tend to wrap all the way around the block. So as it turns out, New Yorkers aren’t necessarily buying the argument. But what this tells us is that the Mayor of New York City clearly intends to place himself in terms of the historical record over against not only discrimination as he defines it, but even any kind of conviction that stands in the way of the moral revolution he intends to champion and, in terms of his own office, to lead.

Again, note very carefully what’s going on here. The Mayor of New York City did not accuse Chick-fil-A of acting in any discriminatory fashion. He made no complaint concerning its product or its services. His only complaint, the central complaint he took to the public last week, was that the owning family of Chick-fil-A holds to a biblical understanding of marriage. The Mayor of New York City has said that in itself is simply unacceptable.

Harvard Law professor openly advocates for liberal triumphalism through judicial activism

But all of this sets us up for a very important article written by a man identified as the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School. Mark Tushnet teaches at what is certainly the most influential law school in the United States and, furthermore, in the world. In his essay entitled,

“Abandoning Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism”

—admittedly a mouthful, Professor Tushnet sends a very clear signal of where this moral revolution is headed and who is in the very gun sights of the revolutionaries. When he talks about abandoning what he calls “defensive crouch liberal constitutionalism,” he is calling for liberal constitutionalists to enter into the public fray with the renewed fervor and, for that matter, a determination not only to oppose conservative constitutional arguments, but to basically eliminate them. In the article he says that abandoning what he calls this “defensive crouch liberalism”—and by that he means that in his view liberals have been far too reluctant to make their case openly—he says that first this would mean what he calls,

“…a jurisprudence of ‘wrong the day it was decided.’”

Now those who follow constitutional law know exactly what he’s talking about. He is suggesting that with a new liberal majority on the United States Supreme Court, the Court should revisit many cases that have been settled years ago when, he would claim, the Court represented a more conservative majority. And in their argument, he is now openly asserting, that the justices should simply say, the liberal justices, he’s addressing himself too here, should simply say that the decision was wrong the day it was decided. Now what does that mean? What he means is that there is no need to argue that there has been some change in the situation, nor even to acknowledge that there has been some change in the way the United States Constitution is read. Rather he is arguing liberal constitutionalists, in this case liberal jurists, liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, should simply move swiftly to reverse cases in which they were in the minority.

Interestingly and very informatively, one of the cases he cites as what the liberal justices should reverse is the Casey decision in which the majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. That was the case that disappointed so many pro-life activists because in that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court basically upheld Roe v. Wade. But in this case, the Court did say that states could move to legislatively restrict abortion, so long as those restrictions did not place what they called an “undue burden” upon women seeking an abortion. In this particular case, Professor Tushnet says, the Court should reverse itself, saying that it was wrong from the beginning, eliminating the need to prove any undue burden simply to make abortion even more accessible in America.

The second point made by Professor Tushnet is,

“The culture wars are over they lost, we won.”

That is what makes this essay so very important. Here you have one of the most influential constitutional liberals in America arguing that what he defines here as the culture wars are over. And conservatives lost and liberals won. Here the law professor is calling upon liberals to take a far more aggressive position, and quite particularly aggressive towards whom he defines as the losers in the culture war. He writes this,

“For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics.”

“My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all.”

“Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown.”

Then as if those sentences aren’t stunning enough he writes,

“And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.”

Now note the meaning of that sentence. Here you have a constitutional law professor teaching at Harvard Law School arguing that when it comes to the cultural conflict in America, the conflict between moral conservatives and moral liberals, the moral liberals won, the conservatives lost, and the liberals should simply now accommodate nothing in terms of the losing side. And what’s so incredible here is that when this law professor defines the losing side, his historical examples put in this sentence surrounded by parentheses in his essay—well, his examples are Germany and Japan. This is how the left increasingly sees moral conservatives in America, and this includes conservative Christians. We are a defeated foe, as defeated as was Germany and Japan, both of whom had to issue an ultimate unconditional surrender in order to end World War II.

Now you have a Professor at Harvard Law School saying that that is the position that moral conservatives in this country should be forced into—unconditional surrender, with the examples being the surrenders of Germany and Japan in 1945. The professor went on to write,

“I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights.”

But then he concludes the paragraph with these words,

“But the war’s over, and we won.”

Before leaving Professor Tushnet’s article, it is important to note that he offered some other arguments as well. One of them he states in these words:

“Aggressively exploit the ambiguities and loopholes in unfavorable precedents [he means by that, court precedents] that aren’t worth overruling.”

And he gives some examples. His argument is very straightforward, if there is a decision handed down by a court, in particular the Supreme Court, that doesn’t play into the liberal agenda, liberals should find a way to “exploit ambiguities and loopholes.”

There are other arguments the professor makes and one of them includes an obscenity that of course I will not repeat. But the importance of this article, this essay published by a major constitutional theorist and a professor of law at Harvard Law School, the main importance is in demonstrating conclusively where this cultural revolution is now headed in terms of the turn that liberals now believe is their call, their call entirely. And you see the sense of moral triumph in terms of their argument. As this professor said in more than one way and in more than one place in this essay, when it comes to the liberals, they won and conservatives lost. His argument is quite clear: liberals should not seek even to accommodate to any extent conservative arguments or conservative convictions. When we consider the inevitable collisions between religious liberty and the moral revolution, we’ve now been served notice by at least one very influential law professor in the United States of what we are likely to face, not only in terms of argument, but also in terms of attitude.

Back when there was the effort to legalize same-sex marriage and when those cases were building and headed towards the inevitable Supreme Court decision that was handed down, you’ll recall that was the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015, on the way there, the proponents of same-sex marriage recognized that they would, if victorious, have to decide how they would deal with those who would oppose same-sex marriage. Back then when same-sex marriage was more of an idea than a reality, back then the proponents of same-sex marriage said that they would have to find a way to accommodate at least those who by religious conviction, in particular Christian conviction, could not affirm same-sex marriage. But you’ll note how this turn is now taken, a very concrete turn signaled by two very important moral authorities in this country—one of them, the Mayor of New York City, who takes a take-no-prisoners approach when it comes to the moral revolution, and he applies that to a chicken sandwich next, you have a very influential constitutional law professor at the Harvard Law School who applies this in terms of the entire cultural agenda and simply says the time has come for liberals to cease even any attempt or pretense to accommodate those who will not affirm the moral revolution. In his words, those words that should now ring in our ears,

So it turns out that Christians, who are determined to live out the Christian worldview and to be faithful to all that Scripture teaches, are going to face some very new challenges in the 2016 presidential race. That’s how we began. But the larger picture is this: we’re going to face some very real challenges, some very new challenges in terms of life in America in the 21st century. That’s the bigger issue, and those issues as we now know will far outlast whatever happens in the 2016 presidential election. But on the other hand, this also points to why this election, like every presidential election, is so important. It too will send a signal. The difficulty is right now imagining what that signal might be.

Thanks for listening to The Briefing.

For more information go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to boycecollege.com.

I’m speaking to you from Washington, D.C. and I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me using the contact form. Follow regular updates on Twitter at @albertmohler.

Subscribe via email for daily Briefings and more (unsubscribe at any time).


' To glorify God'

Of course, it is famous for having done exactly the opposite just a few years ago.

Dan Cathy, the son of the late Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy, set off a fury among gay rights supporters in 2012 when he told the Baptist Press in 2012 that the company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family." Following Cathy's remarks, reports emerged detailing Chick-fil-A's many charitable donations to anti-gay marriage organizations.

These days, Chick-fil-A is warning all of its franchisees against speaking out publicly or getting involved in anything that could blur the line between their private beliefs and their public roles as extensions of the Chick-fil-A brand.

In an election year, that message extends to politics, in part to keep the brand from being exploited by candidates. In fact, the company has turned down several candidates who have tried to use Chick-fil-A to bolster their campaigns.

"There are several candidates who would like to use us as a platform," Farmer said.

"We are not engaging," he adds. "Chick-fil-A is about food, and that's it."

And the company's corporate purpose still reflects its founder's Christian faith: "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A."

But Chick-fil-A is now pushing a more inclusive message, and telling operators not to let their activities in the community alienate or exclude any particular faiths or religious organizations.

"We want Chick-fil-A to be for everyone. That's your filter when deciding what to engage in," Farmer says.


Chick-fil-A gay fallout: Chicago ban, Facebook gaffe, Malkin blog

Strike another city from Chick-fil-A’s fan club as a Chicago official has pledged to block the fast-food chain from opening in his district amid a heated national debate over the place of the gay marriage debate in corporate America.

Proco “Joe” Moreno, one of 50 Windy City aldermen who make up the City Council, told the Chicago Tribune that he plans to prevent Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago restaurant in his trendy, hipster-filled ward.

The company’s offense? President Dan Cathy’s comments last week that he is “guilty as charged” of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In other words, he’s not in favor of gay marriage.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune this week. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1stWard.”

He also added that Cathy’s comments were “bigoted, homophobic.”

Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, followed suit with his own statement: “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

So far, San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, both of whom preside over substantial LGBT populations, have not responded to requests for their take on the issue.

Last week, Chick-fil-A issued a statement saying it would “leave leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.” The company added that it has always aimed to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

The reaction has been intense. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he no longer wanted Chick-fil-A in his city. Muppets creator Jim Henson Co. backed out of a partnership with the chain to make kids meals toys. Protestors are planning to congregate outside locations tonight participating same-sex couples will publicly embrace.

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee began marshaling supporters to swarm into Chick-fil-A restaurants on Aug. 1. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin blogged that Menino’s “beef with the beloved chicken sandwich supplier is as full of holes as Chick-fil-A’s trademark waffle fires.”

“When an elected public official wields the club of government against a Christian business in the name of “tolerance,” it’s not harmless kid stuff,” Malkin wrote. “It’s chilling.”

Meanwhile, Gizmodo says that Chick-fil-A created a fake Facebook account to raise sympathy on social media, using a stock image of a teenage girl to invent a persona named “Abby Farle” to defend the chain in comments sections. The company denied the accusations to BuzzFeed.

Actress Roseanne Barr directed a pretty-much unprintable tweet at people who eat “antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ,” saying that the group “deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come.”


Copycat Chick-fil-A Nuggets

I have always been somewhat of a late adopter in almost all aspects of life. I was one of the last people on earth to start wearing converse “chucks”. Or make the switch to skinny jeans. I was also very late on the iPhone adoption. And now I’m one of the last people to finally try Chick-fil-A.

The funny thing is, we didn’t even mean to go there. I was craving pancakes so we made our way to a popular waffle house just to find out that there was a 30-min wait on a Tuesday afternoon. So we drove back to our house and on the way home, we passed a Chick-Fil-A when Jason looked at me and said, “It’s time. We have to try this place at some point.”

So we pull up to the drive-thru and ordered 2 chicken sandwiches, chicken nuggets and all of their dipping sauces. And boy, was I in for a treat. It was ah-mazing. All of it. The sandwich. The nuggets. Oh, the nuggets. We almost went back because there wasn’t enough nuggets to go around!

But as amazing as that was, I couldn’t help but recreate this at home. I was a bit skeptical because I was unsure if the homemade version could actually top the original but surely enough, it tasted a million times better. Not to mention the epic homemade honey mustard sauce. I’m not even a mustard fan but this – this I could slurp, drink, and gulp down in my sleep. And once you dip those crisp nuggets, you’ll never want to go to Chick-fil-A again!


The history of photography is the recount of inventions, scientific discoveries and technical improvements that allowed human beings to capture an image on a photosensitive surface for the first time, using light and certain chemical elements that react with it.

The history of photography is the recount of inventions, scientific discoveries and technical improvements that allowed human beings to capture an image on a photosensitive surface for the first time, using light and certain chemical elements that react with it.

The news of 1839 announcing the existence of a procedure to fix the images by chemical means caused a sensation: the daguerreotype was perceived as a prodigy. Other procedures soon appeared. The invention of the visiting card format and the standardization of practices opened the way to important photography studios specializing in portraiture.

The photography was used for documentary purposes: inventory missions, topographic surveys, identification cliches, scientific investigations and reports. Spread by books and the first illustrated magazines with photographic evidence, it accompanied industrial progress in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Quentin Bajac invites us to explore the limits and advances of photography's first fifty years and shows how some of the photographers of the time wanted it to be recognized as an art.

First photographic experiments

Around 1800, in England, Thomas Wedgwood managed to produce a negative black and white photograph in a darkroom on white paper or leather treated with silver nitrate, a white chemical that was known to darken when exposed to light. .

However, the image was not permanent, as it ended up completely darkening after a few minutes.

The first photograph

Photography, as we know it, was born in France in 1826 when Joseph Nicephore Niepce achieved the first photograph, "Point of view from the window at Le Gras". This image was made on a pewter sheet covered with bitumen diluted in lavender oil and recorded after 8 hours of exposure.

Daguerreotypes, emulsion plates, and wet plates occurred almost simultaneously in the mid-19th century after Niepce's discovery. These next three techniques were the ones that gave rise to the origin of modern photography.

The first color photograph

During the nineteenth century many chemists began to experiment to move from black and white photography to color photography. The first color photograph in history was baptized as "Tartan Ribbon" or "The Tartan Ribbon". This was taken in 1861 by photographer Thomas Sutton following the guidelines of British physicist James Clerk Maxwell.

The first color photograph was made with three negatives, which were obtained with blue, red and green filters. During development, these negatives were superimposed on a projection to create a single image.

This is how the first permanent color photograph was born in Great Britain, taken using a new 3-color additive system known as trichromacy.

However, this method did not fix the colors to the photo and, therefore, the first color photographic plate was patented in 1903 by the Lumiere brothers, which was brought to commercial markets in 1907 under the name Autochrome.

Years later, in 1935, the photographic plate was replaced by the first color photographic film invented by the Eastman Kodak Company and marketed as Kodachrome. But, in 1936 Agfa's version, called Agfa color, was here to stay.


Technology companies

Many of the large tech companies in the US have donated substantial sums to the cause. Google has committed $12 million, while both Facebook and Amazon are donating $10 million to various groups that fight against racial injustice. Apple is pledging a whopping $100 million for a new Racial Equity and Justice Initiative that will "challenge the systemic barriers to opportunity and dignity that exist for communities of color, and particularly for the black community," according to Apple CEO Tim Cook. Check out CNET's guide to learn more about how tech companies are supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.


These 21 booming restaurant chains are expanding in N.J.

While many casual-dining restaurant chains like Applebee's, TGI Friday's and Chili's continue to slump, shuttering locations state and nationwide, other restaurant chains have been expanding throughout New Jersey and the U.S.

Many, though not all, of the chains expanding in New Jersey are fast-casual restaurants, which have been booming in recent years by focusing on convenience, quality ingredients, the ability to customize meals, and online and mobile ordering options.

However, some experts believe the fast-casual trend has hit a plateau and will see a decline in sales growth this year, according to a recent report by Bloomberg.com.

Here's the chains with big New Jersey plans:

Blaze Pizza, one of the fastest-growing, fast-casual chains in the country, is about to open its sixth location in New Jersey soon as it continues its aggressive expansion throughout the state and country.

Inside the chain's trendy, modern-looking shops, customers move down an assembly line (similar to other fast-casual joints like Chipotle), offering customizable, artisanal pizzas dishes made with fresh ingredients and within just three minutes. The millennial-geared chain — which uses recycled materials and energy-efficient lighting — also promotes its community ties at each location, hosting local and fundraising events.

The Maryland-based sports bar chain the Greene Turtle recently opened it first New Jersey location in North Brunswick earlier this year as part of a major expansion into the Northeast.

The sports bar chain — which prides itself on being a "neighborhood hangout" with comfort food and a casual atmosphere — plans to open 15 locations in the Garden State in the coming years as part of its expansion plan.

The restaurant — which has all the linkings of a traditional sports bar and grill, offering hamburgers, french fries and sandwiches — also brings some flavor from its hometown of Maryland, including its crab cakes and crab cake soup as well as funnel cake fries.

Panera Bread is one the fast-casual-restaurant chains booming in recent years, focusing on only using "clean" ingredients, offering meals that can be customized, and giving customers the ability to order online or through its mobile app, which is linked to Apple Pay. The chain is also continuing to expand its Panera Delivery service with plans to roll out a new order tracking system that allows customers follow their delivery orders to their home or office.

There are currently 60 Panera Bread locations in New Jersey and roughly 2,000 in the U.S. and Canada.

The Tilted Kilt, a growing Celtic-themed restaurant chain where female servers wear revealing kilt uniforms, has been rapidly growing over the years, becoming a major competitor of Hooters.