Chick-fil-A Vandalism Suspect Arrested

Manny Castro, a Hollywood artist who claimed responsibility for a "Tastes like hate" message painted outside a Torrance Chick-fil-A, is arrested.

REDONDO BEACH, CA -- A man who publicly claimed responsibility for vandalizing a local Chick-fil-A restaurant with the words "Tastes Like Hate," in protest of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy's comments against same-sex marriage, was taken into custody, police announced Thursday.

Hollywood artist Manuel "Manny" Castro, 30, was arrested about 8 p.m. Wednesday in West Hollywood and booked on suspicion of vandalism, said Torrance police Sgt. Steven Jenkinson.

Castro posted $20,000 bail and was released about three hours later, the sheriff's department reported.

  • Previously:

Jenkinson said police were also working to identify a "person of interest who may have been involved in the commission of this crime."

On Aug. 3 about 6:40 a.m., officers went to the restaurant in Torrance in the 18200 block of Hawthorne Boulevard near the Redondo Beach border on a report that the east side of the building was vandalized with the words "Tastes Like Hate" in black paint, along with a drawing of a cow holding a paint brush.

"Numerous items of evidence" were recovered near the scene, Jenkinson said.

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Friday, Castro, who is gay, took responsibility for the message.

"It's paint on a wall," he said. "It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime—it's a protest."

A public information officer with the Torrance Police Department was unaware of the interview until Patch contacted the department Aug. 3 asking for comment. She told Patch that investigators would look into it.

"During the ongoing investigation, detectives worked to independently identify Castro as a suspect by corroborating Castro's involvement in the vandalism through the available evidence and information from their investigation," Jenkinson said.

The day before his arrest, Castro released a statement to the Huffington Post. In it, he said the message was meant to "further a discussion about tolerance and acceptance," and that he wished anti-gay vandalism would receive the same kind of media attention.

"I am happy to pay for the costs of repainting the wall, but I am not—nor will I ever be—happy to sit quietly at the back of the bus," he said.

Anyone with more information about the case is urged to call Torrance police at 310-618-5570.

—City News Service contributed to this report.

MARK IT RIGHT August 14, 2012 at 03:23 PM
And you for impersonating a human being.
jmj August 14, 2012 at 03:24 PM
Jim, society is allowed to set standards based on that society's values and mores. The Constitution is there to insure that the individual's rights are not violated in the process. Gays already have the same right to marry as the rest of us. They can't marry the same sex, neither can I. They can marry the opposite sex, so can I. The laws regarding marriage ARE being applied equally.
MARK IT RIGHT August 14, 2012 at 03:34 PM
@Sandy - Please try to remember that not everyone worships the same God as you and some worship none. Your religious beliefs are not more important than any other person's beliefs. People write books everyday. Until a God shows up and says "See I do exist." the only thing you have to go on is your beliefs and pure speculation.
MARK IT RIGHT August 14, 2012 at 03:35 PM
Why did you have to post the same comment 4 times? It wasn't that good of a comment.
MARK IT RIGHT August 14, 2012 at 03:37 PM
@Jim - Well said.
MARK IT RIGHT August 14, 2012 at 03:42 PM
@Mike Barnett - Gays are a small percentage of the U.S. If the president was just trying to get votes, I don't think he would have made the announcement that he believes in gay marriage. Why alienate such a large portion of the voters? Maybe, just maybe, it is how he really feels and he stood up for his beliefs.
MARK IT RIGHT August 14, 2012 at 03:52 PM
@ Pe Mar - The only thing I have to say is what makes your opinion the right one?
Jim August 14, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Hey Jmj, You can legally marry the person you are sexually attracted to and love, while gay people can't. To say it is equatable that they can marry a person of the opposite sex is limiting them to a suffocating, unfulfilled, and unhappy life. When all people have access to opportunity and legal protection, the entire society benefits.
jmj August 14, 2012 at 04:15 PM
@ Jim - The law doesn't care whether you are gay or straight, it also doesn't care who you love. It is simply a reflection of society's mores. Our society has determined that gay marriage is not to be the standard, neither is polygamous marriages, neither is marriage between blood relatives. If we alter the standard for marriage to gay marriage based on who you love, then we would also have to alter it for any number of groups.
DavidaMBurns August 14, 2012 at 04:16 PM
To Nicole-Since you are deleting free speech comments can you at least delete a few of Sandy's multiple posts? It's quite annoying. Thank you.
Jim August 14, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Hey Jmj, I'm talking about two consenting adults, just like straight marriage.
jmj August 14, 2012 at 04:46 PM
@ Jim - That's what I'm talking about, too. If you allow gay marriage based on consenting adults who love each other, you would have to include ALL groups.
Jim August 14, 2012 at 04:50 PM
Hey Jmj, No, all other parameters the same.
jmj August 14, 2012 at 06:13 PM
@ Jim - So you think it is alright to select who is allowed to marry based on your parameters? That would be the very bias that you are accusing other of.
Jim August 14, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Hey Jmj, No, I'm just talking about the current parameters with the exception of gender of either party. You can love your sister, or sisters, but you shouldn't marry them.
jmj August 14, 2012 at 06:47 PM
@ Jim - Why would you make an exception in the case of gender and not for blood relatives or plural marriages. Do you think these people are incapable of loving?
Tim Sole August 14, 2012 at 07:04 PM
I have always wondered if their is such a thing as "Gay". The way I look at it, if Darwin's Theory of Evolution actually works as the scientific community thinks it does, only the strong procreate and survive. Then lets face the facts of evolution, if a gene is not needed, natural selection removes it. Seeing that 2 X's or 2 Y's can't procreate, how does that specific gay gene slip so easily through the theory. Now, if you are telling me that you chose to be sexually attracted to someone of your own sex, that would hold true to the theory, but you can't have it both ways. If it did, the "Theory of Evolution" would need to be thrown out. "Religious Bigots" on the other hand ignore the "Theory of Evolution" and pretty much anything else they don't agree with. Gay's should be allowed to enjoy that attraction, everyone else gets to enjoy what they are attracted to. If by chance "Gay's" think you get a pass or special privileges for that, not so much.
Jim August 14, 2012 at 07:05 PM
No, certainly they are capable of loving. But when gay marriage is legal, these people can marry either an opposite sex partner if they are straight, or a same sex partner if they are gay. They have a viable alternative, which isn't the case without gay marriage being legal. There is no sexual orientation for carnal love of groups or relatives.
jmj August 14, 2012 at 08:32 PM
Of course there is a sexual orientation for carnal groups or relatives. If someone is attracted to the opposite sex they are heterosexual, regardless of whether or not they are related or how many there are. If someone is attracted to the same sex they are homosexual, regardless of quantity or relation. If an exception is made for one group, it will have to be made for others as well.
Jim August 14, 2012 at 08:53 PM
That's incorrect. Just because the law changes and says that gays can marry each other does not automatically say that anyone can marry relatives or groups of people. Where is that coming from?
jmj August 14, 2012 at 09:55 PM
Why would you not include blood relatives and polygamous marriages, if you want to change the law gay marriage? If the standard is 2 adults who love each other, how could you discriminate?
Jim August 14, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Hey Jmj, That's not my standard. Once again, I want the same parameters as now except that the couples may be either same sex or opposite sex.
jmj August 15, 2012 at 03:14 AM
@ Jim - Polygamous and incestuous marriages fit your standard, according to your initial post. They are citizens and taxpayers. Shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? Why should they be treated as second class citizens because others want to force their religious beliefs on them?
Jim August 15, 2012 at 04:24 AM
No, I was just saying that gay people are tax payers and citizens and should have the same rights as everyone else and not be denied marriage to someone they feel attracted to and love. You keep bringing up polygamy and incest. You seem to think that if you grant marriage to gay people that you have to allow polygamy and incest. Why do you think you have to do that?
jmj August 15, 2012 at 05:01 AM
Why do you feel that you can exclude polygamous and blood relative unions from the same right to marry as you want gays to have? Why is it right for one but not the other? It should be easy to answer.
jmj August 15, 2012 at 05:05 AM
Let me ask it in another way. You seem to think that gays should have the same right to marry who they are attracted to as heterosexuals do. Why?
DavidaMBurns August 15, 2012 at 05:45 AM
Hey Jim and jmj, why don't you two agree to disagree already? Nobody will ever win this debate. Move on!!!
jmj August 15, 2012 at 07:33 AM
Because Jim made the assertion that gays are being treated as second class citizens because they are denied the right to marry. I am trying to get him to explain his position in light of the fact that laws regarding marriage are being applied equally, i.e.,gays can't marry the same sex, neither can heterosexuals, gays can marry the opposite sex, so can heterosexuals.
DavidaMBurns August 15, 2012 at 03:05 PM
jmj - It doesn't do any good to debate this issue. These people believe what they believe. They want the right to marry for financial reasons. I tell these people, if gay marriage is made into law in every state, then by God they better legalize unions where people just want to live together without that piece of paper. They used to call that common law marriage. And while they're at it, they better legalize polygamy too. I wouldn't mind having a couple of husbands myself.
Todd Rogers August 15, 2012 at 03:49 PM
You are right . He should be charged


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something