Tucson Chick-Fil-A Female Worker Verbally Assaulted by CFO of Vante, Adam Smith

Reposted from Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich

Yesterday at a Chick-Fil-A in Tucson, Ariz. a man named Adam Smith, who is reportedly an adjunct lecturer at the University of Arizona, made it a point to visit the restaurant so he could milk the company for a free water while verbally assaulting a nice young woman working there. He pulls up to the window, asks for the free water and the abuse begins. Ironically (or in typical liberal form), Smith claimed he’s against hate, yet proceeds to tell the woman that the corporation she works for donates to hate groups and that he doesn’t understand how she lives with herself. The video was re-uploaded to a second account after the original video was removed.



  1. Conservative American says

    Thank you, Mr. Smith, for making the case for why we need to CONTINUE to “Eat mor chicken!”.

  2. This lisping commuter (detectable with every “s” – spit shield needed at drive-thru), with most of his underpants worn internally, claims to be a heterosexual, although his Facebook page touts the “LGBT Democrats.” If he isn’t a Sodomite, I’m Billy Carter back from the grave. The server showed patience and character, obviously a result of the corporation’s pre-planning and preparation for a gay haboob. I could never work for Chick-fil-A. My uncontrollable reaction would have been to treat this drive-thru dump driller to a complimentary Super-Sized brown shower of McDonalds-temperature java. Hat’s off once again to this faith-based corporation, who are capable of ‘turning the other cheek’ to deviates who continuously offer up both of them.

  3. UPDATE: Terminated by his employer. No longer CFO. Now SOL.


  4. Steven Toth says

    Mr. Smith’s attitude and comments are typical of the arrogance by today’s intolerant liberals through out the country. Instead of taking his argument to the top man at Chick Fil-A, he picked on a young, hourly worker who makes no policy decisions for the company. To further humiliate her by saying that he doesn’t understand how the young lady lives with herself is disgusting. I hope the University of Arizona no longer has a need for this person’s services.

  5. Conservative American says

    Mr. Smith’s termination does nothing to benefit “Chick-fil-A” or to further support for the position held by “Chick-fil-A”. Mr. Smith’s loss is not our gain.

    • checker99 says

      Wrong. Smith’s termination from both his employer and the AZU sends a message that this kind of nonsense should not be tolerated. Period. Do you think Smith would tolerate this kind of behavior towards one of his fellow workers or a student of one of his lectures simply because they work or attend?

  6. I believe the incident as a whole and especially the termination have benefit. Breitbart’s Dana Loesch dips her toe in the apologist pool with this:

    “…Companies don’t own their employees [public] thoughts and opinions [and actions] off the clock unless of course, that is your previously agreed upon arrangement…”

    The missing words are ‘public’ and ‘actions.’ What you do off the job, especially when viewable by the entire world, can and will affect your employment security. Had Smith pre-scripted his ‘speech’ rather than shooting from the hip to target and brow-beat a guiltless hourly employee, he might still have his job.

    Regardless of the benefit of lesson to others here, I expect we will see a few more tomorrow (Friday). But between Raum Emanuel, Thomas Menino, the Jim Henson Company, and now Smith, the country is getting a real good look and perhaps an awaking slap in the face. It’s time for a Mupp-cott.

  7. There are people out there who don’t have any manners. It has nothing to do with political beliefs. I applaud Dan Cathy’s stand against serial polygamy (remarriage after divorce), and am heartened to see that most Americans support my position against divorce, and serial polygamy. AI am surprised that SA is cheering Mr Cathy on, since this site has come out in favor of divorce and remarriage in the past.

  8. Nordine Crub says

    Mr. Smith mom can’t be very proud…where are the manners? I will say this about Chick-fil-A employees…they are always polite, well scrubbed and are the kind of employees that make for a winning business.

  9. I love Chick-Fil-A. They are an American corporation and they prepare a very safe, wholesome food product.

    Chick-Fil-A should help sponsor the Winter games in 2016 in Russia.

  10. Conservative American says

    Think it’s over? Of course not! The radical left can’t allow “Chick-fil-A” to stand up and speak out or other businesses will follow suit!

    “The Civil Rights Agenda Files Complaints Against Chick-fil-A”

    “August 2, 2012 – Chicago, Illinois – The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA), Illinois’ largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights advocacy organization, working with cooperating attorneys and on behalf of claimants, filed multiple complaints against Chick-fil-A with The Illinois Department of Human Rights. Among other things, the complaints allege that Chick-fil-A’s “intolerant corporate culture” violates Illinois law, specifically Section 5-102(B) of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits a “public accommodation” from making protected classes “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable.”

    “In our current high speed media and social media environment, Chick-fil-A has announced and caused to be published, to hundreds of millions of people, that LGBT people are unacceptable and objectionable,” said Jacob Meister, Governing Board President of The Civil Rights Agenda and the attorney who filed the complaint. “They have made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.”

    “The names of the complainants are being kept confidential. “Given the extent of media coverage this issue has received, the current complainants have requested that their name be withheld from the media,” stated Anthony Martinez, Executive Director of The Civil Rights Agenda. “The complainants are a same-gender family with a daughter. Chick-fil-A used to be one of their favorite places to eat until Mr. Cathy’s latest statements were reported so widely. Now, they feel completely unwelcome in the establishment.”

    “The Civil Rights Agenda began working with Alderman Joe Moreno and Chick-fil-A in February. Aware of Chick-fil-A’s reputation of homophobia and discrimination, Alderman Joe Moreno contacted The Civil Rights Agenda to examine their corporate policies. TCRA made recommendations in order to bring Chick-fil-A’s corporate policies in-line with the Illinois Human Rights Act. The suggestions included: an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy, diversity and cultural competency training, parity in employee benefits that included benefits for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships, appropriate and respectful advertising in the LGBT community and transgender inclusive health benefits.”

    “When we began working with Chick-fil-A I thought this would be a quiet matter; working with them to adopt anti-discrimination policy and diversity training,” said Meister, “I had no idea the depth and conviction of their bigotry.”

    “Since it is against Illinois law to discriminate against a protected class and the company had a history of discrimination against minorities, Alderman Moreno made clear his conviction of protecting Chicago residents. “It’s my responsibility, as a community representative, to have responsible businesses [in my Ward], and part of that responsibility is to not have [a business with] discriminatory policies” Moreno told Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” yesterday. “I’m not going to back off.”

    “The dialogue between TCRA and Chick-fil-A stalled once the news of Dan Cathy’s comments broke. “I spoke to a Senior Vice President the week before Dan Cathy’s comments hit the press. Since then, we have not been able to get a hold of anyone at Chick-fil-A,” stated Meister.”

    “The Civil Rights Agenda is quick to point out that this is not a First Amendment Issue. “The complaint has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religious liberty as some might suggest,” insists Martinez. “This is about Chick-fil-A having a policy, a corporate culture, which promotes discrimination. The COO in his personal capacity can say or think whatever he wants, it may be hateful, but it is his right. But when he speaks on behalf of the company, and the company starts implementing policy that reflects that hatred it is against the law in Illinois.”

    “The Civil Rights Agenda will be working with other national organizations that are looking into the legal ramifications of Chick-fil-A giving millions of dollars to recognized “hate groups,” as well as information that Chick-fil-A has practiced segregation prior to the implementation of The Civil Rights Act.”

    “I have an old picture on my desk that was taken in the South before the Civil Rights Act,” said Lowell Jaffe, Political and Policy Director for TCRA, “it’s a restaurant with a sign that says ‘Coloreds Served, take out only.’ That picture is there to remind me that separate is not equal; that access isn’t the only component in civil rights.”


    Eat MORE chicken!

  11. Conservative American says

    “Chick-fil-A day: Don’t boycott. Infiltrate.”

    “by Sally Quinn”

    “The idea of a boycott is so clichéd. Even the kiss-in doesn’t really make the point.”

    “Gays and lesbians could start applying for jobs at Chick-fil-A. Get in there. Become managers, take over the places.”


    “Infiltrate”? An interesting choice of words, Ms.Quinn, and an interesting strategy to “…take over the places.”

    “Noncommunist ranks must be infiltrated, penetrated, and subverted. The success of the communist mission depends on capturing the enemy’s stronghold from within.” – J. Edgar Hoover, “Masters of Deceit”

  12. I’m over this Chick Fil A thing. When I hire a plumber, I don’t hire a Republican plumber or a Democrat plumber. I just want a plumber. That’s kind of how I feel about chicken sandwiches too. I don’t want to know about your politics Chick Fil A, because that’s not the kind of relationship I want to have with you. I’m not interested in the politics of every service I use. I just want lunch. I’m also sick of people ranting that “I will not be silenced!”. I don’t want to silence you, I just don’t want to listen to you. There’s a difference. Im happy with the spicy McChickens for 99 cents, even though I don’t know how Ronald McDonald feels about stem cell research.

  13. Tantalus Eternus says

    Isn’t funny how “tolerance” appears to be uni-directiona?

    “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Patrick Henry

  14. Conservative American says

    “Intolerant MSNBC Contributor gives on-air advice on how to BULLY Chick-fil-A into submission”

    “The intolerant left knows no bounds. Jonathan Capehart, a writer for the Washington Post and MSNBC contributor, says that Chick-fil-A wants to do harm to gay people, both socially and legislatively, and advises other intolerant lefties on-air to BULLY anyone affiliated with Chick-fil-A so they’ll put pressure on Chick-fil-A:”

    Watch the video!


  15. That young lady has a future in politics.

  16. How far is it from Tucson to Tampa?

  17. That is very upsetting.

    This is how I thought we should stand up for gay rights in a very ironic manner in light of this situation.



    • Conservative American says

      Hello, James! Always nice to hear from an independent thinker. You raise a very cogent point!

      “Starbucks”, the coffee chain, supports homosexual “marriage” as a matter of corporate policy but it has no problem reaping profits from it’s stores in countries where homosexuality is punishable under the law, up to and including the death penalty.

      What do you think explains the logical inconsistency you have identified?

  18. Conservative American says

    “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.” – Dan Cathy, President of “Chick-fil-A”

    Leftist Democrats and homosexual “marriage” advocates claim that they too are supportive of “the family”. Let’s look and an example of how they support the family:

    “Democrat admits, ‘Attack on parental rights’ is ‘the whole point’ of banning sex orientation therapy
    by Ben Johnson
    Thu Aug 02, 2012 17:09 EST”

    “SACRAMENTO, CA, August 2, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The author of a California bill that would forbid minors from seeking therapy to overcome unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction has admitted his intention was to undermine parental rights.”

    “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill, because we don’t want to let parents harm their children,” said State Senator Ted Lieu, D-Torrance.”


    From where does this idea of protecting children from harm by their parents spring?

    “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” – Karl Marx, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”

    Let’s put the above statement by Marx in the context of his broader view of family:

    “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”

    “The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”

    So this protection of children from “harm” by their parents is a step toward the Marxist goal of abolishing family altogether.

    Would the references by Mr. Cathy to God and the Bible cause Karl Marx consternation?

    “But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” – Karl Marx, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”

    So what is this reaction to the statements of Mr. Cathy all about? Is it about “gay rights” or is it about his open support for family, God and the Bible? Who is it who, since 1848, when Marx’s “Manifesto” first appeared, has had as their goal the abolition of family, religion and morality?

  19. Conservative American says

    Freedom of speech, including freedom of the press, is a beautiful thing. We can read a myriad of varying accounts and interpretations of a particular event. Here are a few headlines about the “kiss in” protest of “Chick-fil-A”:

    “Chick-fil-A update: About a dozen come to West Des Moines ‘kiss-in’”

    “Kiss-In Fail at Massachusetts Chick-Fil-A”

    In Lubbock, TX: Protesters make no appearances for local Chick-fil-A ‘Kiss-In’

    In Torrance, CA: Chick-fil-A ‘kiss in’ protest off to a slow start (But protesters did find time to deface the building.)

    In Roanoke, VA: Dozens of people hold ‘kiss-in’ at Roanoke’s Chick-Fil-A

    In Dallas, TX: Kiss-In Protest Held at Dallas Chick-fil-A (A whole dozen demonstrators)

    And here are some news stories:

    “Great gay kiss-off lays a gigantic egg”

    “by Andrea Peyser”

    “This was billed as the greatest protest since Occupy Wall Street. Thousands of scantily clad gay men and lesbians said they’d lock lips in a coast-to-coast red-hot make-out session.”

    “They were to blast anti-gay-marriage comments made by Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. But gays preferred staying home to watch “The Real Housewives of New Jersey.”

    “Tumbleweeds could have rolled through the Paramus Park Mall in New Jersey yesterday as a symbol for the lack of stamina in the national kissing campaign.”

    “From Georgia to California, protests drew yawns, not saliva.”

    “Even in Atlanta, the home of Chick-fil-A, only two dozen kissers showed up. And there was a similar lack of necking in Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.”

    “At NYU, 20 people weren’t allowed in the dorm that hosts the city’s only Chick-fil-A. Just three pairs of guys kissed on the street.”


    And from the “Huffington Post”, we have this:

    “Chick-fil-A: Were the Protests a Big Fail? And Where Do We Go From Here?”

    “Michelangelo Signorile.Editor-at-large, HuffPost Gay Voices; SiriusXM radio host”

    “Some are saying we lost the battle with Chick-fil-A, even calling it a dismal failure. I don’t believe any effort to point to homophobia is ever in vain, so I wouldn’t go that far. When you’re fighting bigotry, it’s always an uphill battle.”

    “That said, there were problems with the strategy — or rather, lack of strategy — in taking on Chick-fil-A. We allowed the opponents of LGBT rights to use the media to recast the issue as one about the first amendment. I say we “allowed” the radical right to do this because it’s a no-brainer that it’s not about Chick-fil-A’s first amendment rights, as Gay Voices editor Noah Michelson explained.”

    “And these people are hypocrites who cared nothing about the first amendment when they went on a religious crusade against Muslims, trying to stop construction of the Islamic center near ground zero back in 2010.”


    It takes all kinds, LOL! Mr. Signorile chooses to not frame the “kiss in” as a failure. See, freedom of the press still lives! Bravo!

    Oh, that terrible “radical right”, using the media to frame this as a First Amendment issue! (The “radical right” uses the media all the time, you know!) Mr. Signorile seems quite confident that the “radical right” spends it’s time tyring to find ways to promote “bigotry” and “homophobia”, even when simply purchasing and eating chicken sandwiches!

  20. Conservative American says

    While the situation regarding “Chick-fil-A” can be seen as a “social issue”, it is more importantly a political and constitutional issue.

    It is a political issue because the mayor of Boston and a Chicago alderman, both Democrats, vowed to keep “Chick-fil-A” out of their respective cities. Such actions would, even according to the liberal Amercian Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), constitute a clear violation of the First Amendment of The Constitution.

    “The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

    “The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz told Fox, but said that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.”

    “But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”


    Despite the mischaracterization of “Chick-fil-A” as “anti-LGBT”, even the ACLU is clear regarding the unconstitutionality of the actions threatened by Democrats.

    B. Hussein Obama, Democrats, and the B. Hussein Obama administration seem to have difficulty with The Constitution.

    First, it was McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform”. When SCOTUS struck down that legislation as a violation of the First Amendment, B. Hussein Obama disagreed, chastising SCOTUS during a “State of the Union” address.

    Then it was the “Legal Arizona Workers Act”, provisions of which the B. Hussein Obama administration asserted were unconstitutional. Those provisions were upheld as constitutional by every court in which they were adjudicated, up to and including SCOTUS.

    Next, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 against an attempt by the B. Hussein Obama administration to eliminate “ministerial exception”, yet another attempted violation of the First Amendment.

    Most recently, SCOTUS refused to strike down section 2(b) of SB 1070, the central provision of that legislation.

    Since The Constitution refuses to go away for Obama and the Democrats, Obama and the Democrats need to go away for The Constitution!

Leave a Reply