NY Times writer says he was cast out and chastised for naming Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich as his favorite sandwich: HR rep told him: 'We don't do that here. They hate gay people'

A former New York Times writer said he was cast out and chastised for naming a Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich as his favorite when he sat through an orientation meeting. 

In fact, a rep leading the orientation said: 'We don't do that here. They hate gay people.'

After that was said, Adam Rubenstein, a former opinion writer, said the others started to snap their fingers in agreeance before he tried to save himself and added: 'Not the politics, the chicken.'

'But it was too late. I sat down, ashamed,' he wrote.

Rubenstein detailed his reprimand in an article published by The Atlantic called 'I was a Heretic at The New York Times.'  It is the latest example of woke attitude from the left New York Times. 

Adam Rubenstein, a former Opinion writer for the New York Times said that an HR representative scolded him for liking Chick-fil-A 

The moment happened during an orientation with other new employees after he was hired by the publication in 2019

After he told the group that he enjoyed Chick-fil-A's spicy chicken sandwich, he said the HR rep said: 'We don't do that here. They hate gay people' 

The moment happened during an orientation with other new employees after Rubenstein was hired by the publication in 2019. Rubenstein noted that the group played an ice breaker game, where he was asked to name his favorite sandwich.

His real favorite was a $19 sandwich, but felt that might reflect poorly. That is when the fast-food giant's specialty jumped out of his mouth.  

'The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,' Rubenstein said to the group. as he  'considered the ice broken' from his response.

He said that he then got an angry response from the HR representative that was not an appropriate selection. 

Chick-fil-A is commonly known for its chicken-focused menu and its chairman's negative view point on gay marriage. Many liberals have protested against the Atlanta-based fast food chain for their stance. 

After his story for The Atlantic published on Monday, Rubenstein posted the link to it on X (formally Twitter) and said: 'I took notes' 

In the piece, he described himself as a person 'with a background writing for right-of-center publications,' and that The New York Times published pieces by conservatives who 'tended' to agree 'with the liberal line' 

Rubenstein recalled when he got the job, his parents, who were longtime subscribers of the publication 'were thrilled' for him. He later resigned in 2020 by announcing his departure in a Slack messaging channel for Times staffers, The Daily Beast reported. 

He previously worked at The Wall Street Journal out of college and then The Weekly Standard, which is described as 'conservative yet unrelentingly anti-Donald Trump.' 

In the piece, he described himself as a person 'with a background writing for right-of-center publications,' and that The New York Times published pieces by conservatives who "tended" to agree 'with the liberal line.' 

'James Bennet, the Times' editorial-page editor, and James Dao, the op-ed editor, were committed to publishing heterodox views,' Rubenstein said in the article. 

He then mentioned the publication's 'mandate,' which was to provide readers with 'intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.' 

Rubenstein described being a conservative at the Times as 'strange.' 

'I often found myself asking questions like “Doesn’t all of this talk of ‘voter suppression’ on the left sound similar to charges of ‘voter fraud’ on the right?” only to realize how unwelcome such questions were,' he wrote in the Atlantic. 

He had also questioned the reports on Hunter Biden's stolen laptop. 

But, publishing a conservative voice made the paper look centrist, Rubenstein wrote. 

'Standard practice held that when a writer submitted an essay to an editor, the editor would share that draft with colleagues via an email distribution list. Then we would all discuss it. But many of my colleagues didn’t want their name attached to op-eds advancing conservative arguments, and early-to-mid-career staffers would routinely oppose their publication,' the former employee stated. 

Rubenstein left the Times more than six months after he edited Senator Tom Cotton's famous published piece 'Send in the the Troops.' 

The opinion piece sparked much controversy as it came out around the murder of George Floyd, as the article pushed for the military to send in troops to help with the many protests against police brutality. 

Before Rubenstein left, the opinions editor James Bennet decided to resign due to the backlash. 

Prior to his departure, Bennet defended the column and said that it showed readers 'counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy.' 

In response to Rubenstein's newly published piece, New York Times spokesperson told DailyMail.com: 'Our Opinion section’s commitment to publishing diverse views — including those that are unpopular, controversial or heterodox — is unwavering.' 

Chick-fil-A is commonly known for its chicken-focused menu and its chairman's negative view point on gay marriage as many liberals have protested against the Atlanta-based fast food chain for their stance

Besides the Chick-fil-A moment, Rubenstein also detailed other aspects from his job at The New York Times as he claimed that op-ed submissions from conservatives were 'treated differently' 

'That was true before the publication of Senator Cotton’s guest essay in June 2020 and remains true today. Indeed, we’ve only furthered that promise to our readers, offering an even more diverse mix of voices in Opinion than we did four years ago.' 

'However, the commitment to publishing diverse opinions cannot be used as cover for bad process or shoddy work. In this case, the piece itself and the series of decisions that led to its publication did not hold up to scrutiny.' 

'None of that was Adam’s fault. As a junior member of the team, he deserved better editorial support and oversight.' 

'It was clear to me then and it’s clear to me now that the fight over Cotton’s op-ed was never about safety, or the facts, or the editing, or even the argument, but control of the paper and who had it. In the end, all that mattered was that an example had been made,' he said.