The recent barnyard brawling over the anti-gay stance of Chick-fil-A has certainly raised a commotion in the hen-house. Squawking and cackles erupted over news of statements made by the fast food eatery’s president/COO Dan Cathy, who seemed to publicly embrace that position after growing attention focused on donations the company makes to anti-gay groups.
In an interview, Cathy told the Baptist Press, “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”
In another interview, Cathy reiterated his belief: “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.’ I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Just in case it wasn’t explicitly clear, Cathy was blunt about describing the company’s support of ‘traditional’ marriage, “Guilty as charged.”
Cathy, the son of Chick-fil-A’s founder, made these statements after reports surfaced that the company, via its charitable arm, made close to $2 million in donations to groups actively working to discriminate against homosexuals and the LGBT community, including making some behaviors illegal and criminal, here and abroad. The issue at hand isn’t just about gay marriage, but also about employment, life choices, health insurance and, in some cases, survival.
Let's be very clear about the brouhaha raised after Cathy’s comments: This is NOT a first amendment issue; it’s really a civil rights issue. When you have an organization contributing money to groups actively engaged in trying to disenfranchise, segregate and isolate—let alone strip away civil rights from citizens—it is clearly a civil rights issue.
I emphatically contend that Cathy is entitled both to his opinion and his freedom to express it. In fact, I’m gratified that he has expressed it, because now we know where we stand, with him and with his company. His statements demonstrate his prejudices and bigotry, and they shed light on the discriminatory efforts his company’s profits support.
I’m perplexed by the contradictory nature of Cathy’s statement, characterizing those who have the ‘audacity to define what marriage is about’ as ‘prideful’ and ‘arrogant.’ Isn’t that exactly what Cathy was doing? Defining what marriage should be—between a man and a woman?
Protesters speaking out and demonstrating against those views are not intolerant of them. They are merely expressing their own view, that discrimination and segregation—whether cloaked in religious, moral or first amendment arguments—is still bigotry.
Imagine learning that KFC contributes to organizations campaigning for outlawing marriage between men and women of different races, based on arguments of sanctity or morality.Imagine discovering that the president of Taco Bell donates significant company profits to organizations that campaign for removing tax-exempt status of churches and synagogues, because of his interpretation of the phrase, ‘separation of church and state.’ If those moves were true, we’d certainly classify them as bigotry. So too, can we call Chick-fil-A’s actions as bigoted.
I’m glad to see that there have been mounting boycotts and protests against Chick-fil-A’s corporate dealings. They are not intolerant of someone else’s opinions or religious beliefs. Instead, such protests demonstrate an intolerance of intolerance itself, akin to those that that advanced civil rights legislation forward 50-60 years ago, and beyond. They harken back to sit-ins, Rosa Parks, abolitionists, Stonewall and women suffragists. We have a national history of accomplishing legislative equality and increasing public support in this way—that, to me, is more American than anything else.
In this case, like the others, it’s also tantamount to standing up to a bully.
But if we’re searching for some sort of religious foundation for condemning Chick-fil-A and Dan Cathy, perhaps we should look no further than the Golden Rule which, in addition to having some basis in all of the world’s major religions and ethical traditions, is a major tenet of Christianity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
It’s also expressed: “Love your neighbor as you would yourself.”
Isn’t that the most traditional value of all?
You are certainly free to eat wherever you want. But please spare us all the sanctimony that your not patronizing Chick-fil-A is a civil rights issue. When an elected or appointed official rejects a building permit to a company based solely on its president’s stated views on same-sex marriage, pro or con—or any issue for that matter—you may deny it all you want, but that has clearly crossed the line from legal protest to an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment. To say on the one hand that you “emphatically contend that Cathy is entitled both to his opinion and his freedom to express it” and on the other sanction the actions and opinions of the mayors of Boston and San Francisco and Chicago renders your commitment to freedom of expression meaningless.
So how about when an elected or appointed official pushes an agenda based solely on their religious beliefs? That's wrong too.
Perhaps you havent noticed, but the mayors of boston and chicago are promising to block these businesses based on their moral views. A view, that I might add, to Rahm Emanuel, was one that Barack Obama shared until 3 months ago. This is about freedom to believe what marriage is-- these people didnt protest equal rights of gays. They are not looking to oppress or aggressively assault gay people. They are expressing their view that the term (its a word) marriage should be reserved for man and woman. Personally I dont care either way. If they call it marriage civil union or boyfriend and boyfriend. But it matters to some gay people, and it matters to some heterosexual people. If you align yourself with the notion now that the real defintion is man and woman, you will not be able to do business in certain cities? Sorry--thats actually what the civil rights movement was actually about. It wasnt , about teaching tolerance. It was changing laws that prevented blacks from entering certain businesses, simply because of their skin color. These decisions by the mayors are actually a throwback to Jim Crow laws. Arrest these people if they oppress or harm people. But segregating people by 'tolerant' and intolerant is not the right way.
Looks like cons shouldn't have it both ways either....
Boycotts and protests = freedom of speech. Shutting down business through the power of government, violates that tenet. I think the idea here is --that if gay supporters want to boycott or protest, that would be the same idea, and have the same effect. After all, acording to national polls, the majority of americans are for gay marriage. But clearly if a mayor legislates his personal belief, he is denying those that disagree with him, their rights. Put it this way, if Rahm Emanuel says we wont support chickfilet and wont allow them to build any new restaurants you are ok with it. However, if a different mayor has a different idea about gay marriage and denies licences to pro-gay businesses, you would be able to understand how this is against the law--?? And you'd label him etc. The actual decision making is exactly the same. Denying ones rights. The fact that you think its ok to deny rights to the anti-gay is understandable, but wrong.
I didn't miss the point. You did.
At least name the business properly- Chick-Fil-A, not "fillet" Is it really that hard?
I along with numerous others find the continuous obnoxious, meaningless, hateful posts by this character completely out of line with the purpose of the Patch. How about giving this character a tine-out? "that smell from your house, I mistook for your wife
You dont appear to be a patch reader, as you just signed up a minute ago.
Plus, what if another commenter wrote that about your wife or a woman you cared about? Luca, please don't take the dialog down that path.
They did. Thats why I responded. My wife died--but Paul D. told me she is fat and that he feels my pain. (paul D using the moniker lmfao2) If you follow my dialog, you will find that with nearly every time I 'drive the conversation" I get commentary from 2 people --one who is from Newtown , who has been probably 125 people, but include sebastian dangerfiled, eagle 101, now itsui yakomitsu, but also brother augustus, lmfao, --roughly 100. If patch wants to address all this, Im very happy. But, these 2 people Paul D-and sebastian, are the provocatuers..... they are liberal, and I lean right. Apparently they think being right of center, allows them to antagonize contantly. Im 70+ years old. I fought in the war. My wiife died as a result of drinking and driving. I make a decent income, but I pay my taxes. I therefore, have feelings about various subjects that appear on these blogs. My recomendation : find out sebastian dangerfield's IP address and rid this blog of him. Proper decorum will return as quickly as that event occurs.
Also, my sincere apologies about the reference to your wife. I meant no disrespect, and I'm sorry for your loss and any pain I caused by mentioning her. I only wanted to illustrate what that comment (which now seems to have been deleted) must make anyone feel when it's said about a loved one.
5:29 am on Friday, August 10, 2012 You see i knew the LIBERALS would be FLAMED. Dont you LIBS have anything NEW TO TALK ABOUT?? I know it is hard for you LIBS but your post is OFF TOPIC AS USUAL. TRY AND FOCUS FOR A CHANGE!! And they say the republicans are angry. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! Care for a nice CUBAN CIGAR ???? Well i guess you will pass on that one !!!
But , instead --you dig in, like so many bloggers. No interest in this ..... Bye.
2:12 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012 I personally dont give a flip. But the liberals went nuts as usual. They jump on anything that gets them attention. Do i think same sex marriage is wrong YES Do i care NO. As long as the liberals dont bother me and they do every day over their agenda. This one i could care less about. Like abortion i dont care either way. But when the LIBS abolish capital punishment they are total OUT TO LUNCH and PHONEYS. They just want to stomp out other peoples beliefs and constitutional rights plain and simple!!! In my opinion they have sereyous issues beyond this matter.