And, you know, in the world

I had heard that Chick-Fil-A was not exactly pro-gay, but it didn't much matter to me since I hadn't eaten there since I was a teenager, have no franchise near me, and don't eat fast food anyway. In other words, I had no occasion nor desire to frequent them--an unintentional boycott.
I had not made the connection, however, between the company and its sponsorship of a college bowl game. Now that the president of the company has come out and explicitly stated his position as anti-gay marriage (because he worries that god's wrath will be brought down upon us for defying Jesus's will) what will the NCAA do?
Will Chick-Fil-A be prevented from sponsorship of NCAA events?
We shall see...

Comments

Anonymous said…
Has the NCAA endorsed gay marriage?
July 21, 2012 2:07 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Family Guy disses the WNBA

Tonight's episode of Family Guy , which I usually find funny in its treatment of the government and conservativism, did something very unfunny. They dissed the WNBA hardcore, commenting on low scoring (it was 16-9 at the start of the 2nd half with the two high scoring superstars contributing 4 points apiece). Far more egregious though was the statement from the commentators which went something like "is such stardom worth being so ugly." Pat Griffin, writing about the Imus incident on the It Takes a Team Blog , wondered if the comment was not overtly racist but just sexist (and homophobic--an aspect most have ignored) would it have created such as uproar. Probably not. The sexist treatment of the WNBA on an animated cartoon may not generate any news at all. But if you saw the episode and were also offended get in touch with Twentieth Century Fox which produces the show. I cannot find contact info right now but when I do I will post it.
Read more

More reviews of Chak de! India

This review from an Indian paper explains the plot of the movie Chak de! India in great detail. I have heard the plot is fairly predictable but if you are interested in preserving some mystery you might want to skip this one. But the review does actually talk about the flaws of the film which is something I haven't seen yet. The reviewer is particularly displeased that the film places the blame for the decline in (field) hockey's popularity with the surge in cricket's popularity. And of course it also lists the high points including its adherence to the reality of the state of women's sports in India where even national teams have to contend with sub-par facilities. And good news for me: I found the movie showing in a theater 35 minutes away. I think it may be worth the trip.
Read more

Deford strikes and incites--again

I have mentioned previously that I go hot and cold on Frank Deford who provides a piece every Wednesday on NPR's Morning Edition. Yesterday's (and the written version which is at SI.com) is about Title IX. And I am now decidedly cold. I am not going to go into all the problems with Deford's assessment of the situation, most egregiously his belief that Title IX requires proportionality. (Will sports writers ever learn what Title IX really is?) He does trot out again his potential solution that college sports be deemed entertainment--which would basically give athletic departments carte blanche. What was really disturbing was the collection of comments from readers posted on a blog, sponsored by FanNation, linked from the SI.com site. There were some smart comments from Title IX supporters that attempted to show how these cuts anti-IXers are bemoaning are really all about economics and institutional priorities: basketball and football. But people still cry out about how this...
Read more