I really don't understand why anyone would "appreciate" a company
that produces greasy, bad-tasting, unhealthy food, regardless what its owner has
Re: RanchHand Huntsville, UTThis story is about a man who spoke out
in favor of traditional marriages, about the Gays who decided it might be a good
idea to boycott Chick-fil-A to punish him for his beliefs, and the overwhelming
response by those who believe that the 1st Amendment also applies tho him.Those who think they can block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago,
Boston or anywhere else are going to get their hands slapped.
We have the most generous government in history, and now every group of people
are trying to find entitlements, by playing the bigot card.This is
all about qualifying for some kind of handout, not the unfairness of
marriage.Wish I'm wrong, but we're transforming into a
nation of beggars, and whiners. Just immature, and pathetic.
Cathy didn't build chick-fil-a, someone else did it.Chick-fil-a, created more jobs then Obama has in four years.The
commander would just assume raising the tax on Cathy. Hmm? How's that
helping the economy?With a dying economy, all we can think about is
@Culture of Rationalization;Just like any infertile heterosexual
couple we can produce children in exactly the same manners. Adoption.
Surrogacy. Find a willing friend of the opposite sex. Artificial insemination.
In-vitro. Etc.@UtahBruin;The government provides over
1100 benefits to married couples.The Constitution:Article IV Section 2;"The Citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States." (ALL the privileges and immunities - including the benefits of
marriage).Amendment 14;No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Now, can you please
explain how amendments to state constitutions don't violate these clauses?
@atl134"Deluded Minds" I can't say you're right or
wrong, I don't know for sure myself accept for what I have seen."redefining what marriage is all about". You have to be willing to
understand and accept that Mr. Cathy believes the bible, where it confirms
marriage is between a man and a woman only. You may not believe in the bible, I
don't know. According to Mr. Cathy, this is his belief. So he is saying,
if you do otherwise, according to his God, he believes that would constitute
redefining marriage. If you read his quote, he says (We) are inviting
God's judgement on ourselves because we act as if we know more than God.
God said marriage is between a man and a woman only, not Mr. Cathy. This is his
belief in his God, so it's not derogatory, it's his belief. That
doesn't make it wrong.Opinions. Absolutely you're
entitled to disagree. Maybe I misunderstood your comment at first, I felt you
were portraying him as a terrible man, when it is only his beliefs. I thought I
was being helpful in trying to clear some things up.
@Culture of Rationalization"Regarding the second point: the moment I
see LDS doing to those living a homosexual lifestyle anything approaching what
Missourians did to LDS, I would start to think your point might be valid. I just
don't see that happening."One of the groups he donated to
(Family Research Council) spent 25,000 dollars lobbying members of congress to
vote AGAINST a resolution condemning the proposed Ugandan bill that would have
made the death penalty an option for the "crime" of being homosexual.@UtahBruin"He did not say anyone has a "deluded
mind""Yes he did, but it was from a different event where he
said that one. My apologies for not making that clear. [he did not
say that "you are inviting God's judgment by considering "Gay
Marriage". He is saying, who are we to change the meaning of marriage. ]What else could "changing the meaning of marriage" possibly
referring to in that context?"He is entitled to his
opinion"Oh of course, I'm just also entitled to disagree
with it and support boycotts of his business.
@ RanchhandYou say "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."Your right, you don't understand. What rights are being
infringed upon? Are you referring on the ability to marry the same sex? This
is not the GLBT's right as you say, however, If you are referring to this,
they had no right because it was not allowed since the beginning of time. Some
state law makers have changed this since. So since we are all "PEOPLE"
and the "GLBT" wants to be treated like just normal "PEOPLE",
then doesn't voting on something include everyone and their opinions. Why
do you choose to segregate and seperate "Gay" from "Straight"?
I was unaware that "Gay" or "Straight" people had certain
rights. I thought "PEOPLE" had rights, and that is what we
"ALL" vote on. Laws are passed all the time I do not agree with, why
must the "Gay" community think they are being infringed upon if one
doesn't fit their likeness. Hey pot, your black said the kettle.
@atl134I am sorry but your quotes are misleading and inaccurate. His
actual statement was; From the Baptist Press interview... "As it relates to
society in general, I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation
when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than You as to what
constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said also on "The Ken Coleman Radio
Show." "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a
prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to
redefine what marriage is all about." He is merely stating what he believes
in the bible and how he interprets it. He did not say anyone has a "deluded
mind" and he did not say that "you are inviting God's judgment by
considering "Gay Marriage". He is saying, who are we to change the
meaning of marriage. He is simply stating his own thoughts on the subject as to
how he understands it from the bible which he believes in. He is entitled to
his opinion, sometimes opinions hurt. But you have to remember it is just one
@RanchHand,I know I'm supposed to be civil here, so perhaps I
shouldn't use the word "silly", but those arguments do sound silly
to me, and are, in my opinion, just reaching to try to find something, no matter
how weak, to support your position. A heterosexual couple who has
chosen not to have children can change their minds; a homosexual couple
can't suddenly say, "I think we'll start having children now!"
Regarding any other attempts to redirect the conversation, they
would frankly fall under the "many other valid (reasons)" that I
mentioned. I am fairly confident that you don't really think that I would
be opposed to any other heterosexual union, given what I said about a father and
a mother providing balance. And really going into many of the other valid
reasons would be too graphic to be pass the censors. I am also about to be
without computer access for quite a while, so any further responses to my posts
will go unanswered for quite a while--after which it will probably be a moot
point for me to post again.
@atl134I'm not sure why people would be legally required to have
children or not use contraception for my point to be valid. Since I don't
follow your logic there, that's the extent to which I will comment on that
point. Regarding the second point: the moment I see LDS doing to
those living a homosexual lifestyle anything approaching what Missourians did to
LDS, I would start to think your point might be valid. I just don't see
Re: RanchHand Huntsville, UTChicago Alderman Joe Moreno's
threat to block a new Chick-fil-A backfired on him and the Gays. The Chicago
GOP filed a complaint with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan accusing him
of violating state human rights laws with his threat to the store from opening
its first free-standing store in Logan Square because of Cathy’s
stance.Wanna bet who's going to win that fight?
@Culture of Rationalization;So, I guess you're in favor of
banning marriage to heterosexual couples who have decided, before marriage, to
not have children? Who are sterile through choice (hysterectomy, vasectomy)?
Also, you'll have to include older couples who are beyond their child
bearing years (quite a natural phenomena), they've obviously taken
themselves out of the reproductive pool.
@Culture of Rationalization"Those that live a homosexual lifestyle
have taken themselves out of the possibility of producing offspring on their
own. "As soon as the law mandates that married couples make
babies I'll consider this a valid point. Also you should be banning married
couples from using birth control under this logic. I think you just need an
excuse to justify some sort of separate but equal (if you even support civil
unions) or outright discrimination. "The main reason--although
there are many other valid ones as well--that I oppose gay marriage is that it
is the ultimate in attempts to normalize an unnatural lifestyle in the minds of
much of the public."Blocking attempts to "normalize an
unnatural lifestyle in the minds of much of the public" is the mindset that
led to Missourian persecution of the LDS church.
@UtahBlueDevilThe owner donated money to groups fighting against gay
rights, and has said that gay marriage is something that'd be thought up by
a "deluded mind" and that we were "inviting God's judgment"
by considering it. This wasn't respectful disagreement like a Marriott.@red state prideHe did mention gay marriage in other forums like a
radio show where the "inviting God's judgment" thing I mentioned
came from. @teleste"On the other hand, the politicians who
threatened him wanted do illegally target his constitutional rights."I agree that that is wrong. However, a lot of pro-chick-fil-a people are
arguing that the concept of a boycott is a threat to the first amendment (Sarah
@medugall - In regards to your questions, I will do my best to answer them. 1.) Nobody's questioning freedom of speech. Mr. Cathy made a
statement, people say he shouldn't have said it or he's wrong to say
it. Thus, the comments regarding free speech. Most commenting in support of
gay marriage are left wingers, those against it are mostly right wingers, pretty
simple actually.2.) Sure there is a tax write off, who wouldn't
take advantage of that and it is legal. To pre-judge someones true intentions
without knowing them is wrong, maybe they really do care about the community and
do it out of kindness, and since the tax break is there they take it. The type
of food served has nothing to do with any of this.3.) You
didn't read the article, they clearly said they would not support or have
Chik-Fil-A and there was no room in their communities for them, thus blocking
any Chik-Fil-A growth opportunity. They later retracted their statements.My own question to you. What injustices did the gay community have done
to them in this instance?
Mr. Cathy donates directly to organizations who actively and aggressively
campaign against gay marriage. So no, I do not think my comments were incorrect.
He is against gay marriage, and is willing to use the force of law to push his
values on others.To those who say organizing a boycott of a
restaurant over the owner's controversial remarks is anti free speech, I
submit to you that a boycott is exactly free speech, and being anti-boycotts is
being anti free speech.
@oh please the problem is that the early and mid 20th century theories
that they sight while elegant in design did not turn out to have validity when
they where subjected to scientific research and study. I do however admire that
the three of you are willing to at least entertain the ideas of someone like
Sorkoin who is a very vocal supporter of socialism and critic of the American
Capitalists/Military complex. Can we assume you are also willing to at least
read and entertain his theories in these other fields?
Couple of questions for the supporters of Chick-fil-a:1.) Dan Cathy
right to freedom of speech has not been questioned by any party. So, why are so
many people suggesting that is has?2.) Why is there such avid
support for a company who sells food which is extremely unhealthy? I see
multiple comments about how the franchises help schools and other organizations.
Firstly, lets be honest, they do not do it purely out of the kindness of their
heart, they do it for tax and marketing purposes. Donating to non-profits allows
franchises to deduct expenses and similarly promote their addictive (high fat
foods do have addictive properties)products to the most impressionable group,
children. 3.) The mayor of Boston and alderman of Chicago have
expressed deep concern and objection to Dan's statements, but they have not
prevented his company in any way from operating in either city. I
had hoped that this issue would provide an opportunity to reflect on the
injustices people face in this country and see how we can make this country
better, maybe the next generation will make this country better?
I support Dan Cathy's right to free speech, just as I support any
American's right to free speech. I am a proud supporter of Chick Fil A.
As a member of the PTA and a parent of two student athletes, I appreciate the
frequent donations that our local Chick Fil A (Sandy South Towne) makes to our
schools; our kids, our teachers and our athletes. I will go out of my way to
support them for all they do for our community. Thanks Troy Apolonio for all
you do for our local schools!
EVERYONE....Read the comments from BrentBot and Culture of Rationalization many,
many times.They are so right.
Continuing from previous post. Those that live a homosexual lifestyle have
taken themselves out of the possibility of producing offspring on their own.
That isn't a natural thing, and takes an extreme amount of rationalization
to convince oneself otherwise. Yes, a small percentage of heterosexual couples
are unable to have children, but that is an anomaly rather than a natural state,
and the ability to produce your own children, and to raise them as father and
mother giving them natural and necessary balance, is not one to be easily
dismissed. The main reason--although there are many other valid ones as
well--that I oppose gay marriage is that it is the ultimate in attempts to
normalize an unnatural lifestyle in the minds of much of the public. The more
normal it seems to many people, the more likely it is that someone I know, even
a member of my own or extended family, decides it is an acceptable lifestyle.
From my own experience, it is far better to never have gone down a path that
will not produce true happiness, than to attempt to deal with the damage after
It is so nice to finally see Johna, Mike and other far right conservatives
embrace the ACLU and one of its causes.
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.
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?
I think Jesus would have been happier if these people donated their time and
money to a food bank. Just sayin'.
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
. 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
@Belching Cowthe 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
siloSandy, 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.
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.
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
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
@ 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.
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.
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....
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.
@dropoutIf 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,
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
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.
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.
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.
As a private business owner, the right to free speech is still the same as any
individual. The owner(s) are allowed to say anything they want in support of
his/their beliefs. They can donate their money to whatever cause they
choose.As an individual, I have the right, as a participant in a
free market economy, to support or boycott any business I choose, for whatever
reasons I want. Nobody can tell me I am infringing upon his First Amendment
rights while doing so.As elected officials, who are in charge of
contracts and the like, mayors can, if they choose, interpret the 14th Amendment
(and various civil rights legislation) to determine Chick-Fil-A's stance as
being discriminatory and therefore not allowed to compete for, or receive
funding from local government agencies. Don't like it? Elect a new
Mayor.Do you remember when the first "Coon" Chicken opened?
It was in Salt Lake City in 1925. Do you still see it around? No. Chick-Fil-A
is not the same thing, but it is viewed by some as analogous. Let the Free
Market decide. Isn't that how it should be dealt with?
If a company's, say Trader Joe's, CEO said in an interview that he
believed that Mormonism is a cult and people found out that he and his company
donated money to liberal groups that actively campaign against Mormons...would
people in Utah be acting the same way? I mean, he has every right to state his
opinion right? And anyone that doesn't agree with him or doesn't want
to financially support his view would have every right to boycott him and his
business right? I mean he isn't actively discriminating anyone. And if the
Provo and SLC mayors came out and said that if you don't like Mormons,
maybe you shouldn't bring your business to their cities they would just be
supporting the view point of their constituents right? I mean the majority of
the populations in those cities are Mormon or Mormon friendly. Do you see where
I am going with this?
more divisiveness - and what is silly is that in a few short years we'll
look back on this and shake our heads. Who cares what the owner of this place
believes, but when he says it in public, he does open himself up for scrutiny
because of his ownership in the company. So we come to find out (if you
didn't know) that CFA is a company owned by Evangelical Christians... I
wonder what they think of Mormons? Would we be lined up to patronize the
business if we pressed him for an answer to my question?
"It is time to stand up to this brand of leftist economic intimidation."
- John Charity SpringJCS - what is it that prevents some people from
seeing the hypocrisy of their own statements? Is it that those people only
research and repeat information that supports their own viewpoint?In
2003, the Dixie Chicks faced a boycott by radio stations and saw their CD's
destroyed in protest for simply exercising their rights to freedom of speech.
Those protests were conservatives trying to exercise 'economic
intimidation'. In 2008, the founder of Cooper firearms
donated money to the Obama campaign. For that 'atrocity',
conservatives called for a boycott of his company. He stepped down as president
to try to protect his company and his employees.There are many, many
examples of 'economic intimidation' coming from the conservative side,
yet you insist on claiming this in only a 'leftist' issue.
Enjoyed a wonderful evening in a jam-packed Chick-fil-A in So. Jordan. Dan Cathy
has every right to express his First Amendment freedom of speech rights without
being punished for it.
The mayors of Chicago and Boston should be impeached for threatening a private
business owner who was exercising his first amendment right. If you support gay
marriage and don't like his stance, then don't go the restaurant. But
there is a disturbing trend on the part of the American Left (I don't call
them liberals anymore because they aren't liberal, they are totalitarian)
to limit certain speech and actions that are basic American freedoms. This
'protest' today was a great thing.
The mayors of San Fran, Chicago, Boston, et al want to ban CFA because of the
beliefs of its CEO. A New York City councilwoman wants NYU to sever its contract
with CFA, citing "diversity" as the reason, saying New York prides
itself on being the most diverse city in the world. Seriously? Will they want to
ban churches that hold to a traditional view of marriage next? Are they willing
to marginalize anyone that thinks differently than they do, all in the name of
diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance? These politicians have no idea what
hypocrisy mean--nor what the constitution stands for. The debate can go on all
day between people of opposing viewpoints, but when government officials seek to
control the licensing process because of the way someone thinks (and legally
puts their money), we have failed as a nation. When will the thought police be
knocking on our doors?
The president of Chick-Fil-A is a marketing genius. He states the obvious and
then creates a referendum on traditional marriage and free speech that morphs
into a day of buying his products as a sign of solidarity. I hope
this is not the start of another red state blue state divide in which the red
state traditional family values activities each chicken and the blue state
progressive family values activities eat . . . stuffed crepes or Swedish
pancakes. Most Americans will stand in line for games or to buy
products, but the most of them will not stand in line to vote even if there is
not a line.
Chick-fil-A == American Patriotism. The Mayors of Boston and Chicago == the ugly
face of Marxist sensorship . America is at war and today was a chance for
liberals to watch American patriotism in action - coast to coast.
I wanted so badly to support Chick-fil-A, today, but ended up in the ER all day.
I was so disappointed. I believe in freedom of choice, even if it means being in
a relationship I don't agree with, but I don't feel it should be
considered a "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman.
@WallyOr awesome.In some countries the people just kill
This action is no different than countless other situations in which the
left-wing has done everything it could to silence someone with an opposing
viewpoint. Indeed, the left is determined to silence all who oppose it.The left is out to force same-sex marriage on the public, without giving the
public a chance to decide for itself. In fact, the left will not hesitate to use
intimidation, threats, or bullying to force this issue.It is time to
stand up to this brand of leftist economic intimidation. Buy all the chicken you
can, or watch your freedom of expression be destroyed.
It is particularly sad that our entire national dialogue on the nature of human
rights has degenerated to a fight over whether or not to eat a chicken sandwich.
@AbeI guess the difference I still see between the two sides (in
this case anyways) is that even if Cathy is using his money to support "what
many see as discriminatory law" he is well within his rights to donate to
whatever causes he so desires...just like you said. What he is doing is legal,
part of the political discourse in this country, and in his eyes the moral thing
to do. On the other hand, the politicians who threatened him wanted
do illegally target his constitutional rights.That doesn't make
this case pot-vs-kettle, it's more like law abiding citizen-gets-targeted.
@teleste -Cathy (actually all the Cathys, not just Dan - Bubba and
Truett, too) uses CFA profits to lobby. That's his right, of course, just
as it's the right of anyone to either support or not support their
business. But to suggest that the Cathys are not attempting to "use the
force of law" to enforce their beliefs is ignoring the facts in regard to
how they spend their money. They financially support, and seek to expand, what
many see as discriminatory law. Which is not to say that the others
you mentioned are in any way right to use government force against CFA.
There's been plenty of mindless bloviating on all sides of the issue.
@ a schwa- what's odd about your comment is that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A
never even mentioned gays in his comments to a reporter who was btw from a
Baptist organization- it wasn't Connie Chung or Anderson Cooper. He simply
said that he and his company supported the biblical definition of a family.
That's all. The word "gay" or "gay marriage" never came out
of his mouth. And the politically correct thought police crowd went berserk. I just feel bad for the people who were oblivious to all this and had their
heart set on a Chick-Fil-A sandwich for lunch today and got there to find they
wouldn't have time on their lunch break to deal with the wait.
UtahAzulDiablo,Good job of saying what needs to be said!
@SchwaHere's what I don't understand.Cathy
essentially said that he and Chick-fil-A support "the biblical definition of
the family unit" and he donated some of his money to charities that fit
within that framework as he sees it. That hardly is using the "force of law
to prohibit other people from living their lives the way they want to." At the same time, it was the liberal politicians in San Francisco,
Chicago, and Boston who did directly threaten to use their power and the force
of law to deny Cathy and Chick-fil-A their Constitutionally-protected rights.
Go ahead and support gay marriage. But do it the right way (on the
ballots) and try not to bully them or infringe on their rights.
Schwa, I fully agree with you. But what I don't agree with is one group -
in this case the gay community - trying to punish a company whose owner has a
certain opinion, and yet his company doesn't discriminate in practice. It
is just wrong.... and yes, I ate at Chick Fil A today.But I will
equally oppose those who try to deny others their right to choose as well. The
government is not an instrument to enforce doctrine. Family values should be
taught by family, and religious values should be taught in churches and homes.
Here's what I don't understand. Why can't a person "support
traditional marriage" without being against gay marriage? Go ahead and
support traditional marriage. But do it without trying to use the force of law
to prohibit other people from living their lives the way they want to.