Jerkiness Cometh Before a Fall

Friday, August 3, AD 2012

Note to uber jerks everywhere:  it probably isn’t a great idea to make a YouTube video of one of your nastier bits of jerkiness.  Case in point, Adam M. Smith, former CFO of Vante, an Arizona medical manufacturing firm, was quite upset at Chick-Fil-A over gay marriage and decided that it would be a good idea to protest by berating the young lady attempting to take his order at a Chick-Fil-A.  He was obviously proud of his extreme bravery at giving a hard time to a young fast food worker because he filmed it and posted it on YouTube.  Surprisingly, at least I am sure it was a surprise to Mr. Smith, most people who viewed the YouTube video thought he was being a cowardly jerk.  Smith took down the video, but by that time bloggers had latched hold of the story and had downloaded the video.  Now Mr. Smith will have plenty of time to act like a jerk to other  people and post the results on YouTube as he is without employment.  From the CEO of Vante:

Continue reading...

40 Responses to Jerkiness Cometh Before a Fall

  • In this video the man protesting Chick-Fil-A did not yell and scream. Is this the same video? Am I missing something? True, he is a jerk for embarrassing this young lady with his pro-sodomy support, but then again, pro-sodomists are jerks.

  • True Paul, and I have altered the post to reflect that. It might be a reflection of Midwestern Central Illinois Nice, but I interpreted that confrontation as being the equivalent of yelling and a verbal slap in the face. It always rouses my ire to see people take out grudges against low level people in an organization who have no control over policy, and a man berating a woman, especially a woman just trying to do her job, makes me see red.

  • So- a CFO thinks he’s brave because he is rude to a poor woman making minimum wage at a fast food restaurant? Hey, mister, why don’t you go into the nearest Middle Eastern restaurant and berate the owners (who most likely have a much harsher view of gays than Mr. Cathy does)? I’d just love to see a video of that.

    This jerk gloated over wasting a couple of pennies of CFA’s money by ordering only a cup of water. That’s more than offset by the gas (and time) he wasted idling away in the drive through. Apart from his rudeness, I wouldn’t want a CFO with such poor financial sense.

  • There is one (that’s it) CFA in NYC. It’s in Greenwich Village: NYC’s gay Gomorrah.

    I imagine it’s like feeding time at the zoo when our moral superiors come in to vent.

  • Smith got in drive-thru to get free water so he wouldn’t have to invest in CFA. Smith’s act was purposefully mean/nasty. CFA employee was respectful and a hero! Kudos for her. For Smith: what goes around, comes around!

  • What you don’t see in the video is the line of cars that wrapped around the building twice while this jerk was giving his spiel (to someone who had NOTHING to do with what he was protesting) and getting his free water. I would have poured his free water on his head.

  • The thing is this behavior has got to be pretty deep into the way this guy typically behaves.
    Who doesn’t get mad at what they perceive to be some kind of injustice? But who then thinks the best way to direct that anger is to call out and mock some poor minion struggling to make a living?

  • From the video: “They give money to hate groups. Just because someone wants to kiss another guy.”

    Talk about a lie of omission! As I mentioned before, it’s typical progressivist Good Cop/Bad Cop. Good Cop: “Homosexuality does not affect you in any way.” Bad Cop: “We will make sure that no safe space exists for anyone believing in traditional marriage to live in peace.”

  • he did take the water though.

  • That young lady was an excellent model of Christian charity. I admire her ability
    to stay calm and professional. The way things seem to be going in our society,
    it’s possible that any of us may find ourselves likewise confronted by another Adam
    M. Smith. If I were put on the spot, I hope I would hold myself as well as she did.

  • I went to Chick-Fil-A last Saturday. I don’t know what it’s usually like, but the drive-through line circled around the building.

    You know, I’m surprised that I hadn’t read anything about the Support Chick-Fil-A Day two days ago. That’s the kind of thing that I would expect this site to feature.

  • “That’s the kind of thing that I would expect this site to feature.”

    Pinky, we are merely a gaggle of unpaid volunteers. I post frequently, as my work in the law mines allow, but we will never be able to cover everything relevant even to the big issues of the moment.

  • Stunned by the verbal assault and battery the woman held her own, and courageously kept the dignity of the establishment and herself. I read where Obama had called the victim “stupid”. A public establishment is property for the peaceful exchange of commerce. The abuser ought to be brought up on charges of tresspassing and disturbing the peace for his abuse. Thirty days of public service to repair the damages to society . If Obama consented to the abuse by victim bashing, Obama ought to be made to help the criminal. Let them pick up after themselves, this is not occupy wall street. “No shirt, no shoes, no soul, no service.”

  • I fell in love with Chick-Fil-A when I saw that they were closed on Sundays (their workers were given a day of rest in the LORD). They were also giving free breakfast Thursday mornings. In the Jewish tradition, all cooking was done the day before the Sabbath. All was prepared for the LORD. The Sabbath was a day of feast and rest and rest and feast.
    If Vante rehires Smith, I want to know.

  • “Those outnumber the hairs of my head
    who hate me without cause.
    Too many for my strength
    are they who wrongfully are my enemies.
    Must I restore what I did not steal?” Psalm 69

    I have spent part of my hs and college days serving the public in a fast food establishment. Tough work, if you can get it. Was it worth it for this man to lose his job? Let him decide how thirsty he is for truth. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Joshua 24:15

  • I really want to hire that woman for our company. What a composed and steadfast individual.

  • This morning, I heard on the radio that “gay activists are planning a ‘kiss-in’ at CFAs around the country.”

    For about 5 seconds I was all “That’s just wrong! We have to rally and . . .” which was as far as I got before another, more stable and powerful voice said “Let ’em. It will not go well for them at all.”

    So, I hope they do. The incredible backlash will be an excellent example of the “enough rope” theory in action.

    “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32

  • Mary – “I read where Obama had called the victim “stupid”.”


  • It needs to be said again: “A public establishment is property for the peaceful exchange of commerce. The abuser ought to be brought up on charges of tresspassing and disturbing the peace for his abuse.” This will go for every individual in the “kiss in for gay marriage” Get ready with your “disturbing the peace and tresspassing” complaints.

  • Pinky: Credibility in the dustbin. Just another commentator’s musings, but have you noticed that “They shall stand up to be condemned.”?

  • the whole thing is so sad. commentators on fox and other channels have likewise embarrassed themselves, not so flagrantly, and they don’t seem to know it–but revealing the depth of ther misdirected anger.

  • ATTN: Mary De Voe:

    Earlier in a post at Creative Minority Report, I posted the below comment which was a joke referring to the Police/Henry Louis Gates/Beer Summit incident in 2009. I do not believe Obama actually commented on the Adam Smith/Classy Chik-Fil-A employee incident. I noticed you’ve been sort of referring to this as if it happened and I just wanted to set the record straight. Sorry for the confusion.

    “I think I just heard that Obama has responded to the video. He said “the young lady acted stupidly”, but he is going to host a Peach Shake Summit with the two of them.”

  • It hurts, but…
    I saw this earlier on Father Z’s site, shook my head, wished I’d been the window girl (who treated the idiot with 2 things he might want to check in Webster’s; dignity and respect) but didn’t pass it along cause it’s what we expect from people unaware they’re in a forest as all they see are trees.
    Then I read a story on New Advent ( that demonstrated how myopic and banal you can become when you can’t understand the principal of absolute truths. Best of all, it had a happy ending as the author is a reporter, apparently posted his thoughts on the companies site and had been led to the wood shed for proper punishment.
    Now I HAD to pass both on lest any of my friends miss the good news! Tied it to American Catholic, as I am always pushing it as something that must be read. That’s when I saw the update announcing the idiot had gotten his just desserts… if I could physically still do a jig, Riverdance would have had a new star! Then the back of my brain whispered, “Damn! Now I have to write Vante a note saying he shouldn’t be fired”. By the time it reached my frontal lobe, I realized I had quietly slipped to the 4th level of hell ~
    The guy’s a jerk. He’s mean, wrong, very probably 18 bricks short of a load and should be tongue lashed by his mama for being a bully and forgetting common courtesy. BUT, he shouldn’t be fired unless we want to start scratching out words from the same 1st Amendment we’re demanding be upheld.
    Two last things ~ although I’ve been reading American Catholic for a long time, I’ve never posted before so if I’ve been too wordy or broken a rule, I apologize. Finally, I have no trek with Facebook or Twitter, so, if “the jerk” in some way identifies his employer on either site, thereby leaving Vante open to the possibility of being considered complicit with his actions, I will be thrilled to be wrong and delighted I won’t have to send Vante a note.

  • Chris-2-4 Thank you for your immediate notation as I have attributed the saying to your musings as intercepted by PINKY. I do appreciate the clarity with which our blogs are kept.

    Barb: Being fired for indiscretions such as verbal assault and battery, false accusations of hatred, trespassing on property zoned for peaceable business accomodation, and anti-social behavior; let those who love Smith have him. Please know that if there had been a man behind the counter, Smith would have feigned and fainted. This is a first class sexual harrassment lawsuit using Mr. Dan Cathy as a scape goat.

  • Barb,
    Nice first post. Just a couple of points:
    First, the jerk was not fired for his views, but for behaving like a jerk and therefore embarrassing his employer.
    Second, the First Amendment protects a person’s speech from government reprisal; not employer reprisal. In fact, it is doubtful that a law preventing an employer from firing someone for a political reason would survive First Amendment scrutiny.

  • What a jerk. The employee really kept her cool. She needs a raise just for that.

  • @David, No kidding. She handled it very well, better than I would have. Me, “Excuse me sir. I am here to take your order, not your opinion. Now… would you like fries with your water?”

  • “Thread-jack Alert”

    Isn’t it very cool to see that little ol’ NZ with only 4.5mil. population is currently 12th. on the Olympic medal table, while our brother Aussies are 19th. 🙂

    I’ll gloat while I’m able, because you can be assured that the Aussies will come roaring back, if only to beat us. 🙂

  • Actually, this comment is on the appropriate topic too, don’t you think? 😉

  • Actually, on viewing the video again, I noticed how the young woman took the wind out of his sales. When the jerk drove up to the window, he clearly wanted to make her angry. He was hoping for a dramatic confrontation he could capture on video so he could say “See! Look what ‘haters’ these people are!” But the polite, harried young woman is so obviously NOT a hater that he had to shift gears. He then tried to make her feel guilty (‘how can you sleep at night?”) because he realized things were not going according to plan. (And he was still stupid enough to post the thing on YouTube, because he just couldn’t resist showing the world that he was nobly standing up for gay rights. )

    I agree that her self control was admirable. I would have lost my temper in her situation – and handed the jerk “a win.”

  • Go Kiwi’s!!!

    I was a few days in Canada. Their Olympic coverage is heart-warming.

    Go Maple Leafs!

    Back to topic, fast-food employees often get the “treatment” from irate customers, liberals, and other specimens of human flotsam.

    This idiot, as are all liberals, is too stupid to get it. Liberals’ stupidity is forgivable. The evil is not.

  • T. Shaw, I think that’s one of the nicest things you have said here at TAC: “Liberals’ stupidity is forgiveable. The evil is not.” Usually you’re an undiplomatic malcontent like me, telling the bald truth just like a skunk off gassing at Sunday morning Mass! 😉

  • PWP: It ain’t undiplomatic or uncharitable if it’s true. Here I paraphrase the famed, American philosopher, Bear Bryant (or Cassius Clay). He was referring to bragging.

    PS: The Bombers just beat the Mariner 6 – 3: complete game CC.

    Spiritual Works of Mercy:

    Admonish the sinner.

    Counsel the doubtful.

    Instruct the ignorant.

    Pray for the living and the dead (including sinners. “Those most in need of Christ’s Mercy.”)

    Plus, at the moment, Mac isn’t moderating me.

  • Oh, I agree, T. Shaw. You wrote the truth!

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Bigotry Christophobia Homophobia Intolerance | Big ?ulpit
  • <– Adam Smith's apology (he seems very open here).

  • He should have made it a straight up apology without the commentary on CFA.

    But, to comment on his comments, I have noticed the same sex supporters trying to re-shape the argument away from Dan Cathy’s comments to where CFA or the Cathys donate there money. If they are so outraged by this, then where were they before Dan Cathy’s comments? CFA being a Christian business is certainly nothing new. I believe the homosexual crowd were being used by the scandal pimps, getting them worked up about a company that seems so out of place in a decadent liberal world they want.

  • I feel really proud of the drive-through counter lady … She kept her cool … I would’ve lost my patience had it been me, but she kept it together … I hope CFA promoted her to deputy manager, or something …. 🙂

Cardinal George on “Chicago Values”

Tuesday, July 31, AD 2012

Francis Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago is alleged to have predicted that for upholding the teachings of Christ he will die in his bed, his successor will die in a prison cell, and his successor will be executed in a public square in Chicago.  Therefore, I am unsurprised that he has written an open letter exploring the “Chicago Values” cited by Mayor Emanuel when he decided to attack the free speech rights of Chick-Fil-A:




Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago.  I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval.  Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?  Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it?  I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.”  Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus.  Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will?  What are we re-defining?

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage.  Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago.  Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female.  The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.  Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital.  Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Cardinal George on “Chicago Values”

  • Thank you for this post, Donald.

  • A square circle has been proven to be imposible and the best analogy for gay-marriage. I appreciate the way you described the situation in Chicago about the government approving a man’s value system. Will it come to the government forcing individuals to have sex change operations to realize its value-system?

  • I didn’t know the Cardinal had it in him. I just wish this had been his demeanor for the last 20 years. Apparently he has concluded his flock is under attack and he will not cede moral high ground to a bunch of corrupt, secular, depraved politicians who lack any moral standing whatsoever.

  • Darn, that was well-said. I pray the Cardinal’s prophesy about his successors my be wrong, but I fear he is all too prescient. Thanks for posting.

  • That quote from Cardinal George is very ominous. What was the context and are there any links?

  • He said it after civil unions passed in Illinois in 2010. I have been unable to find a direct link to the statement, but I will keep looking.

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Intolerance Equality | Big Pulpit
  • Marriage is primordial and, in the happy phrase of Lord Stowell in Dalrymple v Dalrymple, it is the parent, not the child of civil society.

    The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.

    The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].

    This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including such luminaries as Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.

    No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

    It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, is either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.

  • The “martyrdom” quote has also been attributed to Abp. Charles Chaput. I also have attempted to pin down an exact time and place where Cardinal George said this and haven’t yet been able to find one. My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that whatever its origin, it’s been attributed to Cardinal George so many times that he’s embraced it and doesn’t bother denying that he said it, since it does express his beliefs about the direction religious freedom issues seem to be going in the U.S.

    Famous people or public figures often have quotes attributed to them that they never said, whether it’s Abraham Lincoln’s alleged “Ten Cannots” (“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift….”) or Chuck Colson’s “I would run over my grandmother to elect Nixon” or George Carlin’s “Hurricane Rules.”

  • …but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens

    These are fighting words. I doubt that the Rahms will take heed. Either by accident or design, the US has come to a position where the Right has to put aside all the pointless courtesies, and fight the Left tooth and nail or stand in danger of becoming strangers in their own land.

  • Archbishop Chaput has denied saying it Elaine. The quote has aroused my suspicion now since I can find nothing on the internet citing the statement directly from anything written or said by Cardinal George. I hope someone asks Cardinal George about the statement so we can clear this up. I have modified the post to say that he is alleged to have made this prediction.

  • So much talk on Gay marriage and the push to make it culturally acceptable and respectable but many seem to accept unmarried heterosexual unions. So many couples shacked up, living together and bearing children with little concern about the long time welfare of the child. Which type of union is more sinful in the eyes of God? Which lifestyle will have the greatest negative impact on our culture. What will life be like in America 50 years from now? I’m afraid to guess.

  • Indeed, Ivan, for the Left has dropped all pretense; where before was metaphor, dissemblance and clever rhetoric, now stand naked hostility and unadulterated arrogance.

    They started this, and one or the other side will soon perceive itself painted into a corner. Then it’s a-gonna get ugly.

  • RPM, those are valid concerns, and I certainly don’t see anyone here condoning either situation. As for which is more sinful in God’s eyes, only He knows for sure – for us, it is clear both are gravely sinful (both are in the mortal sin category, but whether it earns the 4th or 5th circle of hell, I’d just rather avoid either).

    As for impact on society, one strikes at the fundamental structure of marriage, the complementarity of the sexes, and the unified purposes of the marital act; the other likely involves a larger absolute number of individuals, and if not altering the fundamental structure, at a minumum undermines the important pillar of stability that marriage (ideally) provides. Neither is good.

  • Please give Cardinal George a call and thank him for his leadership as Christ’s chosen shepherd: 312-751-8200.

  • RPM

    From the public’s perspective, the two cases are very different.

    As the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell observed, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” That is why the state uses the institution of marriage to make the paternity of children clear, certain and incontestable. Were this not its primary legal function, it is difficult to see why the law should facilitate marriage in extremis. What other purpose does a death-bed marriage serve?

    By the same token, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile, are irrelevant to the institution of marriage. This is different legal treatment, because their situation is not analogous.

    As the legislator has no authority in the other world, whatever may be the lot of its subjects in the life to come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this one.

    The question is not one of morals, but of civil status: (1) mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code and (3) the sex difference is central to filiation.

  • The nearest Chick-filet-a is 25 miles away from me, in Racine. And since the price of gas has skyrocketed to over $4.00 a gallon in Wisconsin (a pipeline to Chicago has broken and is leaking in central Wisconsin), I don’t think it would be prudent to make a 50 mile round trip to buy a chicken sandwich:-) But I certainly will, when gas prices go down a bit.

    I remember saying, at Gerard N.’s old blog *sigh*, that gay marriage was not a terribly important issue to me. Well, congrats to the gay bigots who have finally succeeded in making me an active oppoment to their agenda. Does anyone think it will stop with Chick-filet-a? No, I can easily see gays holding “kiss-ins” outside of our parishes on Sunday mornings, because Todd and Brad really, really want to have a Catholic marriage service, but those mean old “homophobes” are standing in their way. The harassment will never, ever end unless we make a stand now.

  • The fascinating aspect of this Donna is the rapidity of all this. Two decades ago only the lunatic fringe of the gay rights movement was even talking about gay marriage. Now the Democrats are enshrining gay marriage in their platform and denouncing as dangerous bigots anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. I await with anticipation what next “right” will become a cause celebre on the Left, and an excuse for what too many Leftists seem to live for: an opportunity to engage in campaigns of organized hate against those who do not follow them in ideological lock step.

  • Rockport Pilot, Rockport Texas
    Friday, August 3, 2012Dear Editor;

    Since there are many businesses whose primary reason for existence is to spread hate, in addition to Chick-Fil-A, and since there are many executives who espouse bigoted traditional values and hate-driven biblical values, would not the actions of all good pure people – which includes, by definition, all Democrats – in avoiding these businesses be greatly facilitated if: 1. Christian businesses be required to display a Star Of Bethlehem sign in their businesses – and this could be a federal regulation whose implementation involves multiple government agencies, e.g. EPA, Health And Human Services, Department of Education, Homeland Security, and of course the Center for Disease Control; and 2. Christian executives be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have one tattooed on their forearms? And, to further the purity of Democrats and all others who are free of hate, why not have all Christians who go out in public be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have it tattooed on their foreheads? Of course a crucifix would do instead of the star.

    Am I remembering correctly something like this once happened? Was it in Europe? Wasn’t there some kind of conflict about this? How did the pure people do that time?

    Guy McClung

  • Truth Mr. McClung:

    When will our self-proclaimed moral superiors stage a kiss-in in Saudi Arabia or in a Nation of Islam meeting?

    Western oil purchases made Saudi Arabia super-wealthy.

    They cannot pull such publicity stunts because they don’t allow (Nicht Keystone pipeline; “not in my back yard”; save the snail darter; save Mother Erda!) energy independence.

    So it goes. Most of USA oil to make gasoline is imported from foreign cartels, e.g., OPEC, composed of countries that are tyrannies that execute gays.

  • Everyone must be tired of reading this but I must post it again, simply because it says what it says: one fake husband or one fake wife equals one fake marriage. The truth of the matter is that homosexual behavior does not pass the reality test necessary for admission into the culture. The fact that the homosexual agenda will not allow the issue to be put on the ballot is a very good indication of the level of indoctrination, physical coersion and the dirty politics involved. Whe I say dirty politics, I mean the denial of the human being’s immortal soul, unalienable civil rights, unauthorized use of the language and the strangling of FREEDOM by the perjury that is a fake marriage.