Comments about ‘Nathan B. Oman: Chick-fil-A and the problem of soft censorship’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 29 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT

Like an outfit called 'loose slots and cheap beer O rama' deserves to have 20 franchises in the salt lake valley, chick fil A belongs in Boston.

Casa Grande, AZ

Well good on the ACLU for sticking up for that. There's no excuse for saying he would deny a permit.

Salt Lake City, UT

Threatening to use public resources to discriminate against an otherwise lawful business because you disagree with what that business owner has said about gay marriage is bone-headed and indefensible.

That said, I won't be eating any more Chick-fil-A sandwiches (not the best I've eaten, but not the worst) because I don't want the profits generated by my purchase to fund groups that seek to deny civil rights to American citizens.

Threatening to use public resources to bully Chick-fil-A is as wrong as Mr. Cathy's bullying of gay citizens.

We should not tolerate either form of bullying.


The up-roar over the Chick-fil-A founder has nothing to do with his words, he is after all entitled to his opinion. The up -roar is not even due to his gloating about donating "some money " as stated in the story -what he donated was over $5 million, pocket money to him I'm sure . What is wrong is a group of wealthy so called Christians pooling their mass wealth trying to change laws to force their views on everyone. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to legislate what my opinion will be. My God is not prejudice or look down on those different from the others, he loves everyone.

Salt Lake City, UT

Well said, Blue. I agree on both points (though I'd only been to Chick-fil-A once in my life so it's not like my "boycott" of them would change anything).

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

If you want to make a statement for or against Gay Marriage, do it on your own dime.

If someone decides that won't patronize Chick-fil-A because of their stand on gay marriage that is their right. If the same person is using government money and power to stop them from setting up a restaurant that is NOT their right.

There is a difference between what we do in the private sphere with our own money and choices and what we do in the public sphere with public money and power. Yet both sides constantly lose site of this important point.

If the Catholic Church runs a private adoption agency with their own money they can refuse to place children with Gays (or Baptists or Mormons for that matter). If they use public money to run the agency they cannot discriminate. Yet the Deseret News has repeatedly cited the refusal of the State of Massachusetts to allow the Catholic Church to discriminate against gays in adoption agencies run with state dollars as an example of an infringement of religious liberty.

You can't have it both ways folks.

salt lake, UT

I agree Bule, I do have to however I find it fascinating that this author went out of their way to not acknowledge the ACLU has not just stepped forward with the statement they have stated their willingness to represent chick fil a in court. Articles have been running in other papers for a couple of days know about this fact and yet the DN has not run one whisper of it.

the truth
Holladay, UT

RE: DaveRL

Are you opposed to a group of wealthy athiests, or wealthy liberals, or wealthy "insert any group here" amassing their money to change laws and force views on everyone?

or does your viewpoint only apply to christians or conservatives or groups disagree with?

Everyone is entitled to try influence the creation of laws in this country, not just specific person or groups, that is the greatness of america, and that is how system works.

Christians have every right to speak out in public, and help in creation of our laws, they are Americans too.

And the beauty of America is you have the freedom to CHOOSE where you live, so you can live with like minded people.

Do those people not have freedom and right to do that?

The chick-fil-a man stated his beliefs in traditional marriage and was even willing to back it with his money, BUT he actually never said a word about gays.

Go Big Blue!!!
Bountiful, UT

Another example of those seeking tolerence being totally intolerent. I'll be stopping in for a Chick-fil-A this week.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


Have I missed something in the Chick-Fil-A debate? The CEO expressing personal opinions opposing gay marriage and contributing funds accordingly does not strike me as bullying. I can understand that some will disagree and will stop eating there. But I simply do not see how this is bullying. Can we not disagree anymore? If you and I disagree on abortion or immigration or any other hot button issue, is one of us therefore bullying?

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It's pretty ironic that people on the left always assume that when fascism comes to America it will come from the right. It's frighteningly obvious that in 2012 the thought police are on the left. Be extremely careful who you support if you truly believe in freedom and liberty.

Leesburg, VA

@ Blue: Very well stated!

Salt Lake City, UT

I will be eating at chick fila all week. And three times on the day of the GLBT boycott............

Maricopa, AZ

daverl, I think you've got your story a little backward. The laws are already clear and established and have been around for centuries.
The gay agenda with it's wealthy supporters are the ones who are trying to change laws and push their beliefs on that Vast majority.
They do not allow for any opinion other than their own, otherwise, it's hateful or bullying.
The accusation works both ways.
20 years ago, the gay/lesbian only asked for tolerance.
Now, they want everyone to agree on every issue or the hatred and outrage begins.

Just look at the reaction when once again, the voters of California defeated gay marriage.

Salt Lake City, UT

Twin Lights: "Have I missed something in the Chick-Fil-A debate?"

It seems pretty clear. What's to not understand? Mr. Cathy donates money to groups that favor forcing their personal religious bigotries onto the public and to the detriment of civil rights for gay citizens. If you support bullies, I say that makes you a bully, too.

Similarly, if a public official wants to use public resources to threaten an otherwise lawful business solely on the basis of the personal views of the business' owner, that's also an indefensible act of bullying, and is even worse because it is bullying under the cloak of government legitimacy.

Judge Chick-Fil-A by the quality (or lack thereof) of their food. If Mr. Cathy uses profits from the sale of his sandwiches to support groups that seek to bully other citizens, call him on it and stop eating his sandwiches. That said, no mayor should threaten Chic-Fil-A as a business just because its owner holds beliefs those mayors find repugnant.

Bronx, NY

centuries? barley two decades land only in certain states et alone centuries.

Provo, UT

Blue, either we agree with you or we are bullies? Really? Or if we disagree that is okay as long as we are muzzled. Logic is dead.

Ogden, UT

Screwdriver, Blue, Twin Lights,

+1. This is a definite and troubling overreaction by city government, it's not as if the owner of Chik-fil-a is espousing White Supremacy. But his stance does make me far less inclined to give my personal business to his chain.

I find it amusing how proud you are of such a childish sentiment. Let me know how you feel after eating fast food all week. Sacrificing your health for a cause, that is indeed noble.

Far East USA, SC

"Are you opposed to a group of wealthy athiests, or wealthy liberals, or wealthy "insert any group here" amassing their money to change laws and force views on everyone?"

I am opposed to all big money in politics. That clear enough for you?

Union money corrupts. Corporate money corrupts. And the citizens united ruling put that all on steroids.

I want the bribery out of our govt and I believe that both sides are much more likely to do a better job.

I have yet to see a conservative who thinks the Citizens United ruling will taint our politics.

Ogden, UT

"The gay agenda with it's wealthy supporters are the ones who are trying to change laws and push their beliefs on that Vast majority."

Nope, dead wrong on that one. Polls show that not only do a majority of Americans now feel that gay marriage is acceptable, the proportion of Americans who feel this way has been increasing greatly over the last few decades. This is in contrast to abortion, which has not seen a large increase in public support over the same time period. The reason why so many states are still able to pass ballot initiatives banning gay marriage is that the opponents of gay marriage tend to be zealous about it, whereas many citizens who accept gay marriage don't see it as a big enough issue to go to the polls over. It's all about voter turnout. Think what you will of those facts, but if the trend continues, religious conservatives will be on the losing side of this debate before too long. You already have lost majority public support.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments