Support Chick-Fil-A: Great Chicken, Great Values

Don’t let liberals get away with saying they’re for “diversity.” They only want people to be different on the outside – like different hair, skin, and eye color.  But what about being different on the inside?  Well, that’s where they draw the line.

The latest example of this is when the president of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, answered a question in an interview with Baptist Press.  He said their company is “very much supportive of the family… the biblical definition of the family unit.”

During an interview on “The Ken Coleman Show,” he explained his position further:

“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.’ “

Do you think liberals celebrated Cathy’s beliefs, which add a little diversity to the conversation about gay marriage?  After all, many companies are trying to make gay marriage mainstream.  (For example, Office Depot’s decision to partner with Lady Gaga’s Born This Way Foundation.)  So, did liberals embrace Chick-fil-A, as a mark of their tolerance and diversity?

Um, not so much.

Hollywood actors said they wouldn’t eat there anymore, Facebook lit up with protest, and the mayor of Boston said he wouldn’t let any more Chick-fil-A restaurants into his city.

Why?  Because the company’s president believes what most Americans believe: that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

So, help me understand this, liberals. Are you for true and difficult diversity – diversity of opinion, religion, and beliefs?  The kind of diversity that requires talking to each other about our differences of opinion and ideas? Or just the easy kind of diversity that makes for cool advertisements?

Either way, I appreciate Chick-fil-A and will make it a point to stop at the next one I see. I don’t think there are any in Alaska, but I urge all people who believe in traditional marriage to “eat more chikn.”

Fan Chick-fil-A on Facebook, follow them on Twitter, and eat at their restaurants.  There’s not a more delicious way to show support of traditional values! (Also, “The Anchoress” Elizabeth Scalia writes about this issue very convincingly.  Scroll down to watch the video at the bottom!!)

You might also enjoy:

Connect with me further by:

  • RR

    Just like conservatives have been doing for decades (and back when they had the numbers to make a difference) choosing where you spend your money is as American as apple pie. It is NOT intolerant. With that logic every boycott is an act of intolerance, and BOY do conservatives know how to boycott! (Think Disney, Ellen [after she came out of the closet], stores that wish people a “happy holiday” instead of a “merry christmas,” etc.). That is not intolerance; it is consciously making a choice not to support groups you feel will harm you, however misled you are.

    Boycotting Chik-Fil-A is an appropriate response for those feel that what Kathy said was ignorant and/or bigoted. “Boycotts are powerful movements. Their intent is to deny the corporation customer business to demonstrate that they have made a wrong decision. Boycotting puts that decision on exhibit for the world to see. ” Its not even about money most of the time. It is about the negative press. Right now Chik-Fil-A is reporting record profits, but there will forever be a stigma and in 20 years it will be the minority who see homosexuality as an “abomination” and this will be a mar on Chik-Fil-A’s record. Those who are fiercely supporting Chik-Fil-A right now because it is a hot political topic will still eat there, but not like they are now. Their lives will go back to normal and they won’t be running to Chik-Fil-A daily to support “the biblical definition of marriage.” Then the records profits will dwindle back to normal. But the gays and those who love them will always remember that their money is going to a group that wants to ensure that people can not marry those they love and these people will not go back to “business as usual.” They will never eat there again. Chik-Fil-A will lose in the long run. Love, after all, is a powerful motivator.

  • Charmaine

    Bristol, I’m quite irritated you are grouping liberal views with “cool advertising.” Liberals don’t care about advertising; it’s more about the principal of the matter. We all knew Chick-fil-A was a Christian company, but the fact that the CEO gives money to anti-supporting gay marriage organizations is clear discrimination of gays. I am fully straight, but as a supporter of gay marriage, why would I contribute to the CEOs funds?
    Liberals aren’t for ‘diveristy’, but for equality. Having two gay aunts and a gay godmother I respect their love for their partners and hope to see their love in a bond of marriage. Gay marriage isn’t hurting anyone or degrading the meaning of marriage. Marriage is an unbreakable bond between two people who love each other.
    I think Chick-fil-a’s and other mainstream companies for and against gay marriage has altered the concept into something more than it should be. People are now not thinking for themselves, but relying on public figures to decide whether it is right or wrong.

  • Scott Soenksen

    Liberalism is a mental disorder. Pass the waffle fries!

  • Lia McCarthy

    Bristol…. I think you should take a moment and really try to see things from a different prospective. The way you separate people and world issues into groups is quite ignorant.
    I am what you would call a “Liberal” (like it’s such a bad thing). I refuse to live under a rock and I strongly think that all people should be accepted for who they are. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, but the way the gay community gets treated is exactly like segregation. You may not believe that gay relationships or same sex marriages are morally right; however, does it hurt you in anyway? Does it make you have to live your life differently? You have the right to live your life however you like, and so should everyone else.
    Bristol… really think about your life, obviously you are not perfect in people’s eyes. Think about all of the hurtful things that have been said. Think about how you felt. Now think about how the gay community must feel. Constantly being picked on and ridiculed.
    All I ask is that you try to see things from a more neutral point of view.

  • Tadashi Latimore

    I fully support same sex marriage they have every right to marry who they wish. They are two consenting adults who love each other enough to get married and have a family together how dare anyone say that marriage is between a man and a woman, what if I said marriage should ONLY be between a man and a man and a woman and a woman? Everyone has the right to marry the person that loves them and that they love and any ignorant bigot should keep their mouth shut, you are free to be against it but to keep people from marrying is a tyranical approach.

  • B. Keith Phelps

    What a GREAT example of Bristol Palin’s inability to think critically & her ability to twist the meaning of the word “tolerance”! Sorry, Ms. Palin: defending oneself against a bully is QUITE a different concept from BEING the bully. Standing up against the oppressors that have actively sought to oppress our rights as LGBT people in this country & around the world is NOT the same thing as being intolerant of what they believe in the privacy of their own lives & being the oppressors. Not a SINGLE TIME IN HISTORY have I EVER read or heard that a bill was introduced by the LGBT community in an attempt to prevent the church from being able to gather to worship on Sundays. Or to attempt to stifle people from being able to express their dissent w/the gay “lifestyle”. Or to prevent heterosexuals from marrying… or having sex… or doing anything they please, for that matter! Case closed. You have no leg to stand on w/this argument, Ms. Palin, & furthermore, it only serves to make you look rather silly – that you can’t see the difference between the 2. Same-sex marriage proponents & LGBT aren’t (or at least weren’t) against Mr. Cathy, Chick-fil-a, nor the Bible, Christians, or any of that other stuff… they are against it when those & other people/businesses/religious institutions/etc attempt to muscle in on their freedoms & start denying them their personal rights & control their definition of family & what goes on in their private bedroom. Mr. Cathy’s views on same-sex marriage were NEVER the problem & I dare say, still aren’t – & while his making them public would’ve probably angered & ruffled a few of the LGBT community, to be sure (I mean, after all, why does a business really even need to have a stance on same-sex marriage in the first place? I’ll tell you why – it wasn’t necessary except for those businesses that wanted to support their gay employees by offering them the benefits denied them by other employers, & thus, those businesses got tired of the bullying going on & a few decided to make public their support. Naturally, this spurred opposition from those same bullies that started the problem to begin w/, & they had to be certain to make it known that their businesses did NOT support the gay community in any way.) But Mr. Cathy’s use of business funds to further the cause of organizations that have called for the death penalty in Uganda for homosexuals that have been known to ever have consensual gay sex a single time, & a life sentence for those that have been reported as being gay (yes, even by everyday “civilian” citizens) but have not had sex that they know of or can prove (meaning I could go tell the police that my neighbor is gay, & he could be arrested & possibly go to prison for life if he appears a little effeminate & the court considers that as “evidence” that he is indeed gay – but being arrested & going to jail for ANY amount of time on the bullcrap charge of BEING anything is in & of itself a horrible travesty of justice – like arresting someone for being red-headed or left-handed – you’re supposed to charge people/arrest them when they’ve DONE something criminal; not BEEN something you think is wrong or bad); have tried to undo &/or prevent any & all gay rights from existence (i.e. – trying to re-criminalize sex between two consenting same-sex adults); have tried to reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military (because, as 1 of the leaders of 1 of his donated-to organizations put it: if men in the military are able to be open about being gay, it makes them more likely to molest other men in the military!), & all such nonsense as that… these things ARE the problem they have with the aforementioned folks/organizations – not that we disagree w/what they believe or how they live. Mr. Cathy & the people & organizations mentioned above are GREAT examples of intolerance, plain & simple, sprinkled with a VERY healthy dose of ignorance, stupidity, & foolishness. And people who claim their religious rights are violated by having to see gay people together or married are absolutely delusional anyway. We, as Americans, have no rights, religious or otherwise, to not have to see or witness things that make us uncomfortable or that we disagree with. It makes me uncomfortable to have to occasionally see a man with his tongue jammed down his girlfriend’s mouth in the grocery store line – where it’s entirely inappropriate and uncalled for! But it’s not a violation of my rights, my religious freedoms/rights, nor any other freedoms I may think I have. It’s simply a display that’s in bad taste by 2 people that obviously don’t have good sense enough to keep their behavior around others within a socially acceptable level. So no, you shouldn’t have to see 2 men or 2 women make out while your children are there with you (or when they’re not)… but nor should you see that with a heterosexual couple. And when it’s nothing more than a couple (same-sex or opposite) holding hands, standing close, or looking at each other lovingly – GET OVER IT. Your children are going to know there are gay people in the world LONG before you wish they did no matter what you tell them or don’t, and no matter what they see or they don’t. Now, those things said, I am not advocating for ANYBODY or ANYTHING that violates anyone else’s personal rights/freedoms – rape, incest, molestation of children – all those things are sick, twisted, illegal, and people should be held accountable by the law – and they’re also an entirely different situation than same-sex marriage and loving relationships. Arguments that same-sex marriage opens the door for incestuous marriage or is no different than a 40-year old wanting to marry a 13-year old fall totally flat, and if you can’t see why, then you’re too inane to understand any topic suitable for adult discussion to begin with, so none of this matters to you. But marriage and relationships (including sex in private) between any two consenting adults is between those two consenting adults, period. Trying to deny that right to certain people because you feel they shouldn’t do it or because you believe they shouldn’t based on your religion (& so hence, you say “it’s not me that says they shouldn’t, it’s God that says so” – that’s your religious belief & doesn’t represent everyone else equally, & thus, cannot be used to ascertain which people get rights and which ones don’t, as stated in the constitution of the US when it says that NO law shall be made that is based solely on religion/religious belief) is attempting to deny those people their freedoms & rights, & it should bother you to do that as much as it bothers you to imagine them attempting to take away your right to worship or marry your loved one of the opposite sex. When ANY person is oppressed, nobody is free. It’s extremely easy to not be concerned with the outcome of such a vote (like Amendment One in NC & other states with similar constitutional bans/votes on them) when you’ve never had to imagine not having such a right in your life, & won’t have to either way the vote goes. But try imagining it’s YOU & YOUR rights on the chopping block & up for public vote and see how that feels to you. Someone recently said (& I apologize that I can’t remember who it was at this moment), “that’s the funny thing about rights – they’re not supposed to be up for a vote!” And she was EXACTLY RIGHT!! They’re supposed to be yours, undeniable, inalienable, iron-clad and guaranteed. Nobody is supposed to be able to vote on whether or not you can say you disagree w/the government in America; your right to pursue happiness in America; your right to work & earn a living…. yet this is what is happening w/LGBT people – these people think they’re supposed to be able to vote away this group’s rights, simply based on having the majority opinion @ that particular moment, giving them the upper hand. I wonder how “up for a vote” they’d be if someone put a bill on the table that stood to take away their right to assemble for the purpose of worshiping? Somehow, I’m willing to bet my bottom dollar we’d then be hearing the EXACT same statements I’ve just made – about how rights are not supposed to be voted on, & their rights are supposed to be sacred, immutable, inalienable, undeniable, & every other word you can think of to guarantee that they are THEIRS & they belong to them inherently from the moment they’re born until death!! Well, try remember that for EVERYONE – not just when it applies to those you agree w/& have the same religious convictions as… Bristol! So in summary, yes, I believe in & support YOUR right (Ms. Palin & all others) to believe whatever it is that you do in your daily life, religious & otherwise; & more specifically for Ms. Palin, I believe in & support your right to be just as ignorant & downright stupid as you’ve shown yourself to be in this article! But for your own sake, our sake, and for God’s sake, educate yourself & try to think things through a little better BEFORE you go writing about them. Good grief! You make everyone w/similar beliefs look bad when you write things that inane. At least those of us with any sense at all are able to understand & realize that not everyone that is religious or even just against the notion of same-sex marriage is as silly as yourself.

  • Jess Cairns

    The problem is not that the president of Chik-fil-a has these beliefs, but that the company makes an entire group of people, who have done nothing to deserve it, feel unwelcome. This goes past expressing an opinion and becomes discrimination when you use your belief to control who eats at your restaurant. Discrimination is never something to be celebrated.
    I am neither Liberal nor Conservative. I share a few beliefs with each side, and both have severe flaws. However, the simple point of this comment is that the problem people have with Chik-fil-a isn’t the opinion, but the discrimination.

  • Shawn

    “So, did liberals embrace Chick-fil-A, as a mark of their tolerance and diversity?”… I guess I’m confused… what’s tolerant about Chick-fil-A’s stance on this? Are they trying to prove that liberals aren’t tolerant to their opinion or are they trying to prove that conservatives are in no way tolerant? Liberals aren’t tolerant to bigotry if that’s what they’re asking.

  • http://bobmcnesby.com Bob

    Yo Blue, a slight difference. Christmas has been with us for 2000 years. James Dobson does ask for boycotts and a certain group of people (like 85% who count themselves as Christians) may or may not follow his lead. This mayor and others are talking about not allowing a person to open a business which costs both income and labor to that city. And that’s permanent not temporary like Dobson’s. Sorry Blue, bit one is boycotting, the other intolerance, Nazi like and plain wrong…like you.

  • Nova

    They mayor of chitcago isn’t the market.

  • Truth101

    You can show all the general polls you want but almost everytime same-sex marriage is put on the ballot at the state level it is voted down.

    Why is that?

  • William Shipley

    Polls have been changing in the last few months, and seem to now be trending in favor of same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, it is clearly a position on which America is closely divided. What is strange is that the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman is not an extreme position. It was the universal law of the land a very short time ago, Barack Obama was elected proclaiming it as his view. This is certainly a mainstream view whether agreed to by a slight majority or a slight minority. Agree or not, it should not be considered extreme.
    More interestingly is Bristol’s observation on the fact that the only diversity that the Left is interested in is skin color. Diversity of opinion is definitely not welcome. But, if you reflect on this, it means that the left has an inherently racist view of the world, that the only important difference between people is the color of their skin. I would argue that there are vast variations in life experience and opinon which is not decided by the color of our skin. The content of our character is far more important.

  • Patricia Carole Graef

    Good reply…and I agree…

  • GrizzlyMom

    Without attendees they have NO money.

  • Truth

    Pete, You are one little sissy whiner. Nobody is telling you to hang around here.

  • idesign

    I can see your face turning green from my house..:)

  • VKKippy

    Pete, you have it pretty much wrong, those of us that come here do so because we share core beliefs with Bristol and her entire family. If you don’t like Bristol or her show, why don’t you just go away from this blog and find someone you could really get behind, like say, Obama? Your sarcasm is not appreciated.

  • Truth

    Pat, Stop making thinks up. You sound like a nut.

  • liberty

    Tell me Grizzlymom have you recently become an IDIOT or were you just born that way inquireing minds would like to know.

  • Diggertoo

    And you call liberals intolerant? Isn’t your statement a little like the pot calling the kettle black?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X