Comments about ‘Supporters of traditional marriage, free speech show 'appreciation' at Utah Chick-fil-A restaurants’

It's called freedom of speech and it's protected by the Constitution. Liberals seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept. No government entity has any right to deny a business license for political reasons. If Chick-Fil-A were to openly discriminate against any group by refusing to serve them that would be a different scenario. I totally support Chick-Fil-A.

Cathy is active in trying to continue denying rights to Americans and then playing up the fact that allthough he hasn't been denied any rights (especially free speech) he is somehow a victim.

Get back to me when he is actually denied something.

While I don't agree with the beliefs of Chick Fil A, I don't think they should be denied building permits because of their beliefs.

If everyone tried to shut down businesses that we didn't agree with politically, there would be no businesses.

At the same time, people taking photos of themselves holding Chick Fil A bags and flaunting those photos on Facebook doesn't help to bridge the gap between the religious and gay communities. All that does is draw battle lines.

Everyone has their right to their opinions, as for me, I am choosing not to spend money at Chick Filet knowing that a portion of the profits from my purchase are going to special interest groups that seek to deny equal rights to a section of our society. I have exercised my right to chose and marry the person of my choice and I think everyone is entitled to that right and the privileges that come with it. Cathy has the right to think otherwise and to spend his money to lobby to deny others their equal rights. Because I think he is morally wrong, I will not give him my money to aid him in the pursuit of his flawed agenda.

@dropout
If an owner of a business said he believed Mormonism is a cult so what? I probably would not spend my money there but I wouldn't raise a big stink about it. I think gays should do the same with Chick-Fil-A. If they don't like it then don't shop there, but quit whining. I can guarantee most mormons would not react the same way the gays do. Politicians threatening to ban a company from certain cities because their beliefs is quite shocking. It clearly shows the hypocrisy and intolerance of the left. They toot their horns about discrimination then turn around and threaten to ban a company because of their beliefs. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that? And to answer your last question. Yes I see where you are going with this, nowhere fast.

So....this is all about Cathy's right to "free speech" -- and NOT about everyone else's?

Don't you all understand that everyone, on all sides, has the right to free speech?

AND.....NO city has actually "banned" (or attempted to legally ban) Chick-fil-A from their city.

Corporations are people.
Cities are incorporated entities.
Therefore, cities are people with free speech rights.

Chick Fil A does not discriminate in practice. Period. They hire gays, they serve gays.

Free speech is protected. Government officials threatening private business because of an expressed opinion is not protected. Hence the retractions by the coward mayors.

I'm sure they knew they were out of line when they offered their initial remarks, but did it to pander to their GLBT voters, knowing they would have to retract.

After all, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to....

I am sorry that supporters of gay marriage can't see that people can support traditional marriage without hating gay people. On the other hand, it's a big assumption that everyone who supported CFA yesterday was against gay marriage. From comments I have read in other publications, people showed up to buy CFA in support of freedom of speech. Most Americans don't like to see people silenced for expressing an opinion.

@ Chaliceman;

I liked your comment, even though I disagree with you.

That is because you seem to understand civility and discourse. I believe he is morally right, and was unfairly targeted by elected officials in a discriminatory way. So my family ate Chick Fil A this week, even though I feel his product is overpriced. You are free to never eat Chick Fil A.

I will defend to the death your right to disagree with me, and hope that you would reciprocate. Unfortunately, what I see from the vocal portion of the LGBT community is intolerance of and vitriol aimed at anyone who disagrees with them, while screaming for forced acceptance (not merely tolerance) of their position.

teleste says:

"But do it the right way (on the ballots) and try not to bully them or infringe on their rights."

I don't understand, isn't voting on the rights of GLBT couples not "infringing on their rights"? Should we vote on the rights of straight couples too? That would only be fair.

============

What is really, really sad is that all of you saying you support Dan Cathy's rights are willing to vote away the rights of other American Citizens and think nothing about it.

A domestic partnership in California has the same civil rights, protections, and benefits as a marriage. So, why does the LGBT attack the definition of marriage in Prop 8, a definition that has thousands of years worth of history, a word that is central to long standing traditions in Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Chinese, early-Greek cultures among others and most importantly doesn't infringe on their rights?

The irony is that the LGBT, themselves, still qualify the word (not as a domestic partnership), but as "same-sex" marriage. So, it is still not marriage. So, what's the point?

Most people want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and most people want all Americans to have the same civil rights. That is exactly what Californians had, but the fighting, name-calling, and hate-mongering continues...why?

Why is this such a big deal to everyone? This is an example of exactly how a Democracy SHOULD work, isn't it? If a society figure, who depends on the support of Americans to succeed in his business, says something you adamently disagree with, feel free to stop eating there. It's his right to speak his beliefs, it's your right to choose where to eat tonight. Everybody gets to express their democratic freedom, it's a win-win IMO. Clearly Chick fil A doesn't need the business of those they've offended, otherwise they would not have said anything, or acted likewise for decades. Clearly those who are protesting the company, are on track to survive without a chicken sandwich from Chick fil A.

And if you want to protest the protestors, have at it. That's your democratic right. Should be no hard feelings on any side.

I'll choose not to eat at Chick fil A, mostly because their food is just not very good. Could care less what their CEO says, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

silo
Sandy, UT
"There are many, many examples of 'economic intimidation' coming from the conservative side, yet you insist on claiming this in only a 'leftist' issue."

"Economic Intimidation"? Not exactly sure what that is. People can (and do) vote with their wallets all day long. More power to them. BTW--I don't see conservatives picketing in front of JC Penney's because they show gays and lesbians in their catalogues. What is disturbing with CFA is 'government intimidation'. THAT is the issue here.

@Belching Cow

the irony in your post is that the gay community did exactly what you said you wished they would do, they decided not to spend their money there and asked anyone that supports them to do the same, its called a boycott. Also, I am glad that you have the confidence in knowing how the majority of 14 million people would react to a hypothetical situation, but please excuse me if I don't take your word on it based on how I have seen my friends and family members and acquaintances react to previous opposition of their religion.

. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle

Why are all the looney lefties upset anyways?......shouldn't your anger be aimed at Obama? After all Cathy didn't build his chick fila......somewhere along the way he got some help! Good job Libs. And cathy thanks you for your he.......now Cathy is laughing all the way to the bank

I think Jesus would have been happier if these people donated their time and money to a food bank. Just sayin'.

Wish I could "like" BrentBot's post multiple times. I kept looking for the core of the argument that I don't see expressed nearly often enough, and that was essentially it. And I wish I had many more than 200 words here. So here's a scenario: "Good" kid knows what is generally right, goes to church, etc. but sees so many outside his circle seemingly enjoying the fast, free life of sex outside of marriage. "Good" kid decides to go down that path, ultimately causing himself and others much grief--lasting as long as he and any children from said path live. Realizes too late that what he was taught was correctly all along, but lives with the consequences.

Do you think this kid would have gone down that path if those promoting an alternate lifestyle were in a tiny minority rather than in the vast majority?

The action of the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston to use the governmental power to prevent Chic-Fil-A from establishing businesses in their cities is despicable, unconstitutional, and un-American. The action of Chick-Fil-A in donating funds to organizations that seek to restrict the right of same-sex individuals to marry the person they love is wrong-headed, bullying behavior, and goes completely against the march of freedom in America. I am fully in support of a boycott directed at Chick-Fil-A, since they have made this an issue. However, this should only be a boycott by customers - the intervention of governmental officers is wrong.

It is so nice to finally see Johna, Mike and other far right conservatives embrace the ACLU and one of its causes.