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

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 6, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    I really don't understand why anyone would "appreciate" a company that produces greasy, bad-tasting, unhealthy food, regardless what its owner has to say.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 3, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    Re: RanchHand Huntsville, UT

    This 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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:21 p.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:30 p.m.

    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 gay marriage?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:14 p.m.

    @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.


    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?

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 2:48 p.m.


    "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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 2:28 p.m.

    @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.

    "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.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 2:08 p.m.

    @ Ranchhand
    You 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.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 1:37 p.m.

    I 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 persons opinion.

  • Culture of Rationalization Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Culture of Rationalization Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    I'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 that happening.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 2, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    Re: RanchHand Huntsville, UT

    Chicago 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?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:51 p.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    The 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 pride
    He did mention gay marriage in other forums like a radio show where the "inviting God's judgment" thing I mentioned came from.

    "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 Palin's comment).

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    @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?

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    @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?

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    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?

  • Cobalt DC Draper, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    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!

  • Oh, please! Saint George, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    EVERYONE....Read the comments from BrentBot and Culture of Rationalization many, many times.

    They are so right.

  • Culture of Rationalization Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    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 the fact.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:38 a.m.

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

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Culture of Rationalization Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    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?

  • Persecuted Mormon Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:18 a.m.

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

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    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 Cathy is laughing all the way to the bank

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    . 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

  • dropout Logan, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    @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.

  • LVIS Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    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?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    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.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:59 a.m.

    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.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    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....

  • Most Truthful and Patriotic Layton, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:44 a.m.

    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.

  • chaliceman Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Aug. 2, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    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.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 6:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 6:13 a.m.

    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?

  • dropout Logan, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 1:13 a.m.

    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?

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:18 a.m.

    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?

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:12 a.m.

    "It is time to stand up to this brand of leftist economic intimidation." - John Charity Spring

    JCS - 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.

  • Lbone Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:15 p.m.

    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.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:47 p.m.

    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.

  • LVIS Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:26 p.m.

    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?

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:25 p.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:01 p.m.

    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.

  • terlds Ogden, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:42 p.m.

    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.

  • teleste Austin, TX
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:29 p.m.


    Or awesome.

    In some countries the people just kill each other.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Wally Ballou Cedar City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:21 p.m.

    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.

  • teleste Austin, TX
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:20 p.m.


    I 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.

  • Abe Sarvis Cedar City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:02 p.m.

    @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.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:32 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:17 p.m.

    Good job of saying what needs to be said!

  • teleste Austin, TX
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:13 p.m.


    Here'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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 1, 2012 7:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 7:12 p.m.

    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.