The New Yorker magazine has devoted most of its non-fiction energy these past two years to railing against President Trump. On Friday, writer Dan Piebenbring departed from that editorial directive to decry the public popularity of Chick-fil-A restaurants in New York City:
One might dismiss the silliness of “evangelizing cows,” but Piepenbring is quite earnest. The tweet from the official New Yorker account was even more full of gloom and doom:
Chick-fil-A’s arrival in New York City feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. https://t.co/wnhMrMBN6z
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) April 13, 2018
The use of the word “arrival” is curious as the restaurant chain opened its first store in Manhattan back in 2015. There were complaints back then too. Well, there was a complaint — New York Mayor Bill de Blasio implored New Yorkers to boycott the restaurant.
That worked so well that Chick-fil-A opened another Manhattan store not too long after.
The fourth and newest Chick-fil-A location in Manhattan is the source of consternation for Piepenbring and The New Yorker. It is also the largest location in the world for the chain.
Progressive disdain for the company is nothing new. In 2012 a nationwide boycott was organized to protest the fact that the charitable foundation of the Cathy family — who own the company — had donated to pro-family charities deemed “anti-LGBT” by progressives. That, for the most part, ended three years ago. Despite that fact, Piepenbring cites that early on as one of the reasons he doesn’t like Chick-fil-A.
The article is an odd commentary describing something virtually unrecognizable to anyone who has ever set foot inside of a Chick-fil-A.
After noting that the restaurant was busy, he launches into his point about the “infiltration” of “Christian traditionalism” by noting that Chick-fil-A headquarters feature “Bible verses and a statue of Jesus.” He never does explain how a statue in Atlanta infiltrates Manhattan.
Piepenbring also mentions the fact that the stores are closed on Sunday, which should only be a problem for someone who actually likes eating at Chick-fil-A.
Is there something you’d like to share, Dan?
He likens the new Manhattan location to a “megachurch” and says that the restaurant’s “arrival in the city augurs worse than a load of manure on the F train.”
Remember, we’re still talking about chicken sandwiches here.
The cows that the chain uses in its advertising seem to be almost as problematic for Piepenbring as the company’s Christian roots. He devotes four full paragraphs to them because he wonders “why Americans fell in love with an ad in which one farm animal begs us to kill another in its place.”
Perhaps we have all been desensitized by Charlie Tuna, a suicidal fish who wanted Starkist to catch and can him.
Perhaps we know that cows can’t really write and that it is just a television commercial.
It is difficult to ascertain the motivation for Piepenbring’s article other than deeply rooted bigotry against Christianity. He sneaks in some boilerplate anti-corporate stuff too, but being anti-corporate in Manhattan is a tough gig.
It’s the Christian values held by the company’s owners that obviously bother him. Never mind that none of that is forced on anyone who eats at a Chick-fil-A. There is no “proselytism,” as he states, overt or implied.
There is merely good, inexpensive fast food and good service, which is generally the key to success for any fast food chain.
Had this been written three years ago when the first Chick-fil-A opened in Manhattan it would be understandable from a news standpoint. The hyperbole and progressive bias certainly aren’t out of order for The New Yorker.
Sadly, it’s perfectly fine in most media circles to take potshots at Christians for no reason whatsoever.