See All Topics

Home / Section: Editorial cartooning

Margulies controversial Chick-fil-A cartoon

Daryl Cagle reports that a recent Chick-fil-A cartoon by Jimmy Margulies received quite a bit of reaction. The cartoon depicts a Chick-fil-A restaurant having two water fountains – one straight individuals and another for gay – reminiscent of segregated water fountains for African-Americans.

Here’s Jimmy’s response to the reaction:

I received both praise and condemnation for this cartoon. Those who agreed with me seemed to really like it. Those who did not expressed their disagreement in a few different ways. Some took the cartoon literally, suggesting I was saying that Chick-fil-A discriminates against its gay customers. I explained the cartoon was an exaggeration. Others felt that I was supporting the boycott of the restaurant and that I was denying the owner his freedom of speech. I explained that the cartoon took no position on the boycott, and that the owner is free to express his views, as well as give money to fund opposition to same sex marriage, but that I found this position objectionable, so I was using my cartoon to speak out about the injustice on the issue of same sex marriage.

Community Comments

#1 Michael Pohrer
August/7/2012
@ 10:10 am

The cartoon is simply put fantastic. Thanks for the chuckle!

#2 Norm Feuti
August/7/2012
@ 10:17 am

Absurd. Fast food patrons don’t drink water.

#3 birdie Birdashaw
August/7/2012
@ 11:29 am

I was impressed when I first saw this one. It was nice to see that civil rights protests of the 60s being represented showing how another southern eatery discriminates people.

#4 SJ Stone
August/7/2012
@ 12:36 pm

Totally missed the mark. Muddled message at best.

#5 Mark Juhl
August/7/2012
@ 12:52 pm

Don’t agree with the position but he’s just doing his job, giving his view. However his reasoning or defense on the meaning of the cartoon is ridiculous. It’d be like using nazi imagry and then denying you were making a nazi comparrison.

#6 Jim Lavery
August/7/2012
@ 1:44 pm

Sounds like he had a good idea sitting on the shelf and not being able to wait any longer to use it managed to shoehorn it into someplace it really doesn’t .fit.

#7 Carl Moore
August/14/2012
@ 9:10 pm

Doesn’t take a lot of courage to support gay marriage these days does it? Kinda goin’ along with the herd, eh, Jimmy?

The cartoon clearly suggests that Chick-fil-a discriminates against gays… which, of course, is nonsense. It serves any and all and hires gays without discrimination. That the CEO believes in traditional marriage – along with more than half the American people, president Obama until recently,
and most of the rest of the world – is a good, solid reason to mount a boycott and draw holier-than-thou righteous cartoons that unfairly characterize those who support traditional marriage as equivalent to “segregationists” right out of the 1950s deep South, right? What’s next – Chick-fil-a’s CEO wearing a hood and burning crosses? Hitlerian moustaches and swastikas?

#8 Mike Peterson
August/15/2012
@ 4:31 am

Get a grip, Carl. Also, get a clue: It’s not that the COO (not the CEO) spoke out against civil rights for homosexuals. It’s that the company provides funds for anti-gay rights groups. So the money spent on a sandwich helps fund hate.

And, yes, boycotting a company that actively works to oppose civil rights has roots in the past.

#9 Mike Lester
August/15/2012
@ 6:28 am

” It?s not that the COO (not the CEO) spoke out against civil rights for homosexuals.” -MP

Pretty sure speaking in favor is not speaking in opposition -which I believe is the case here. I’d like to see a quote against civil rights for homosexuals by anyone at CFA.

#10 Keith Brown
August/15/2012
@ 12:13 pm

…and I said nothing.
And then they came for me.

#11 Steve Skelton
August/15/2012
@ 2:14 pm

Best post of the month, Keith!

#12 Carl Moore
August/15/2012
@ 6:23 pm

Supporting traditional marriage is anti-civil rights? Who knew? Gee, I thought saying marriage should be between a man and a woman was… well, kinda normal.

This Chick-fil-a issue is no small matter. Here we have two clownish mayors of major cities saying businessmen who don’t hold politically-correct views aren’t welcome in their city. Never mind that those businesses don’t discriminate against anyone. Just the fact that they hold these dastardly views (marriage should be between a man and a woman) is reason enough to fight their getting business permits and licenses. Do these politically-incorrect businessmen include Muslims? Strict Catholics? Is this really the kind of country we’ve become?

#13 Mike Peterson
August/16/2012
@ 3:37 am

Yeah, Carl, being allowed to marry the person you love is a civil right. There was a time when people of different races were not allowed to marry in some states and, gosh, no, it wasn’t a negative thing. People just said positive things like, “I think people ought to marry within their own race!”

And there were people who thought being white was … well, kinda normal. And they said so, in a positive way, of course. And they hired normal people and they formed clubs for normal people and they only ate in restaurants that served normal people and they only let normal people vote. And the only people who objected were … well, kinda uppity.

In any case, boycotting businesses that donate a portion of their profits to groups that lobby for laws that offend you seems … well, kinda sensible to me.

#14 Keith Brown
August/16/2012
@ 10:31 am

Thanks Steve. The hardest yet most important rights to protect are those in which we may not agree.

#15 Steve Skelton
August/16/2012
@ 10:47 am

If the rights individuals sought to have in a society were the same rights for everyone and everyone agreed, then there would be no discord. And of course, it would mean that we would ALL BE THE SAME! Thank God we are all unique and capable of compassion.

#16 Stephen Beals
August/16/2012
@ 11:02 am

A popular cartoonist on this very site once said that he “doesn’t believe in mixed marriage”. I was floored. It’s like not believing in fish. When questioned, the time-honored reason of “it’s hard on the children” was given. I asked my daughter if she’s had a rough time of it and she just laughed. She’s happy to be here.

Normal. What a stupid word.

#17 Donald Rex Jr.
August/16/2012
@ 3:09 pm

Rules that discriminte open the door to end discrimination.
Those kookie Buddhists!

#18 Chuck Akira Brubaker
August/16/2012
@ 7:59 pm

As a son of parents living in interracial marriage, all I can give in response to anyone who doesn’t believe in “mixed marriage” is a photograph of my middle finger.

And yes, the issue of same-sex marriage IS a civil rights issue. Don’t pretend otherwise.

#19 Dave Stephens
August/16/2012
@ 10:38 pm

“Hard on the children.” Many marriages are “hard on the children” – a mixed marriage between a Democrat and a Republican is even harder on the kids – should that be banned, too? LOL

Divorce is HARDEST on the children. Legal as can be, imagine that…

#20 Carl Moore
August/17/2012
@ 1:55 am

“Normal. What a stupid word.”

Is homosexuality normal? Of course not. It is becoming more and more evident that homosexuality is probably a genetic anomaly. And just as color blindness is a genetic anomaly, or dyslexia, so too, homosexuality is a genetic anomaly. The colorblind person has an abnormality, yes, but he’s not an abnormal person. The gay person has an abnormality but is not an abnormal, or evil, or sinful, or “bad” person. But his homosexuality, like colorblindness, is not normal. To say that homosexuality is not normal is not a bigoted or stupid statement. It’s simply the truth.

Gay people should not be discriminated against any more than colorblind people or dyslexic people should be discriminated against.

Supporting traditional marriage and opposing gay marriage is an intellectually serious position held by fair-minded, caring, loving, tolerant people, just as supporting gay marriage is a serious stand by caring, loving, tolerant people. It’s a difficult issue, not easily dealt with by either side. But fair-minded people respect and have a generous attitude toward the other side and refrain from slinging words around like “hate,” “stupid” and “bigoted.”

#21 Mike Peterson
August/17/2012
@ 3:41 am

If “normal” simply means “in the majority of cases,” then, of course, Carl is right.

Straight people outnumber gay people. People with full-color vision outnumber color blind people. Right-handed people outnumber left-handed people. And, in this country, white people outnumber black people and Gentiles outnumber Jews.

So gay people and color-blind people and left-handed people and black people and Jews are abnormal.

Now, let’s get to the point where you feel the laws should reflect that and should favor normal people and make their tendencies not just dominant but the only legal options …

#22 Michael Pohrer
August/17/2012
@ 6:45 am

@ Mike Peterson If you are referencing United States. Caucasian people do not outnumber African-American people. Recently reported that Caucasians have shifted to be the minority in that certain area.

#23 Michael Pohrer
August/17/2012
@ 6:51 am

Ooops I am incorrect on that. My bad. I should of just referenced that Caucasians are projected to be the minority due to birth rates as recently reported. Anyway that is kind of moot carry on.

#24 Norm Feuti
August/17/2012
@ 7:35 am

The concept of traditional marriage doesn’t need “support” because it already exists, every one is fine with it existing, and nobody is trying to get rid of it.

#25 Keith Brown
August/17/2012
@ 2:01 pm

…meanwhile, as we argue the point, the man behind the curtain continues to rob us blind.

#26 Joe Engesser
August/17/2012
@ 7:54 pm

America will get some much needed “R&R” come November.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.