they must be including mail service, elect service, delivery people, who already have jobs, just adding the store to the route.

Just can't see that many jobs coming from this one fast food place.

I could easily see building a new stand-alone location, or redesigning a space in a mall, as adding jobs to a local economy. Sure, they would be temporary jobs, but they would be considered part of the total number of jobs directly related to the restaurant.

Other than that, I can't see them hiring that many people at once.

I have never worked fast food so I don't know how many employees there are per store.

If Chik-fil-a has plans to expand further county wide, I can understand her desire to stay on their good side.

says county. Not sure why everyone is missing that.

What if the jobs they want to get for people are in strip mining? Or offshore drilling? Or working in sweat shops?

I don't know, I admit, getting people jobs is a pretty important priority, but the perception of it as the most important priority kind of renders you hostage to the so-called "job creators," whose interests have to be pandered to in order to milk a few jobs from them, no matter what the cost in other areas. Ideally, shouldn't the focus be on getting people good jobs and not just on getting any crappy table scrap job that the 1% happens to let fall?

An aside, this Washington Times piece offers an illuminating illustration of propagandistic "journalism." Notice how they describe Chick-fil-A's position as "supportive of traditional marriage"? Chick-fil-A hasn't expressed any positive message in support of any kind of marriage; they've only expressed prejudice towards same sex marriages. Classic propaganda spin.

The groups billed in a 2010 report as "anti-gay" are mostly "pro-traditional." Their "conferences" are usually focused on "traditional marriage" but most of what comes out of them, most of the titles and speakers, really focus on preventing divorce, keeping man/woman marriages together, and working on support for families (which, in most cases, would also help single-parent families that they decry as suboptimal).

That 2010 report linked to a reference in which one of the board members or officials of the group taking in the highest amount from CFA that year was proud that all the officials were with their first wives. No divorce. That's how that group defines itself.

Or they're pro-celibacy. (That would be the youth athletics group.) If you're looking at a bunch of high school athletes and are against straight- and gay-sex, you're mostly talking "heterosexual." Unless you think most of the athletes are gay. Even then, that group is not mostly concerned with how their members use their genitalia. They're not a groin-centered organization. I have problems with definitions and hypotheses that meet my assumptions but account for very little of the data. Esp. when they make me the focus of everybody's effort. (I usually figure I'm not really that important. Often when I nail a student for some transgression or to better manage my classroom so I can teach s/he thinks it's personal personal and somehow s/he's central to my life. I keep the student's just not that important. I remove pebbles when they get in my shoes, but they're an annoyance, not central to my life.)

Some of the groups are more narrowly anti-gay and less obviously pro-"traditional", but those usually got small amounts of $. And at least a few had other focuses, as well. So some "family" group also lobbied about the budget-bill behind the ACA and also against gambling.

Even the WinShape Foundation's mostly pro-traditional marriage and not anti stuff. The Cathy rant was given, after all, at a marriage retreat, and consisted of a few minutes out of a long talk that he gave, and his talk was one of many activities. Unless there's some evidence that all or at least most of those straight marriages were on the rocks because one or both of the members came to realize they were actually gay, Cathy's rant was an aside or minor point. A "and here's another thing" kind of example.

Even their annoying closed-Sundays schtick is old and unchanged since before I was born: it's to give those who want to go to church Sunday time off, and even if you don't then it's family time. It's a privately-imposed blue law. In Maryland many years ago a Saturday-Sabbath keeper tried to tell me that the blue laws in the state were intended to punish sabbatarians. I told him he wasn't that important: The laws were old and intended to prevent distractions from "traditional church" services and Sunday family time, not to make it hard for him to buy beer by having the stores open on Saturday when he was at church and having the stores closed on Sunday when he was at liberty to buy alcohol.