The Chick-fil-A firestorm

Opponents of gay marriage are being demonized.  Not just disagreed with but condemned, attacked, and boycotted.  That’s what Chick-fil-A is learning after the president of the chicken sandwich chain told an interview that he supports traditional families.  Not just gays but liberals and right-thinking forces of tolerance everywhere are seeking to punish the company.  The whole city of Boston is trying to keep it out of town.  But the interview and the controversial pro-family comments were not even about gay marriage, as Terry Mattingly has shown.  Matthew J. Franck explains:

The highly successful Atlanta-based restaurant chain Chick-fil-A has been much in the news these days, because president and chief operating officer Dan Cathy (whose father founded the family-owned business) apparently came out in opposition to same-sex marriage. Or did he?

Terry Mattingly of the indispensable GetReligion site, which tracks all sorts of journalistic coverage of religion, first called attention to the manufacturing of a misleading story here. In an interview with a writer for the Baptist Press, Cathy was asked about the company’s “support of the traditional family.” His response was, “Well, guilty as charged.” And he went on to talk about the company’s commitment “to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families,” because many of the individual restaurants are family-run operations, and because the Cathy family and their company believe, as Christians, in family-friendly policies. (Their Christian faith and their desire to support families account for the restaurant chain’s being closed on Sundays, for instance, a decision by which the company forgoes many millions in annual revenue.)

At no point in the Baptist Press article did Dan Cathy say a word about the issue of same-sex marriage. The nearest the piece comes to the subject is when the reporter writes, “Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family.” The immediate sequel is the remark of Cathy’s I quoted above. But who are those opponents of the company’s policies? We are never told. Is it fair to surmise the reporter is alluding to advocates of same-sex marriage? Maybe, but it’s far from certain. And Dan Cathy is not, repeat not, on the record in this story as taking any position on that issue.

This did not stop CNN and many other outlets from reporting on the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage.” And so a manufactured firestorm began.

via On Mau-Mauing the Chicken Sandwich Guy » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog.

He goes on to trace how the story grew and took on a life of its own.

But say the president of Chick-fil-A did say that he opposes gay marriage.  Is it not going to be allowed for anyone to oppose gay marriage?  Companies openly support the gay rights movement, and conservatives are chided if they consider a boycott.  But companies aren’t allowed to take the opposite–that is, the traditional–position?  Should companies be neutral about such issues in their philanthropic contributions?  If so, shouldn’t people who work for the companies or who run them have the right to express their opinions?  Should companies be punished for what their employees believe?  Should anyone or any corporation be punished for what they believe?

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Perhaps we should boycott the city of Boston (whose baseball team – I, a Yankees fan note with glee – currently resides in the cellah.)

  • Pete

    Perhaps we should boycott the city of Boston (whose baseball team – I, a Yankees fan note with glee – currently resides in the cellah.)

  • Edward Bryant

    A Chicago alderman announced today that he will block the opening of a Chick-fil-A in his ward.
    It’s one thing for individuals to boycott a business whose positions they don’t like, it is another to bring the boot of government down upon “wrong-thinking” people.
    Who said it first, that evil first asks for toleration, then parity, and then supremacy?

  • Edward Bryant

    A Chicago alderman announced today that he will block the opening of a Chick-fil-A in his ward.
    It’s one thing for individuals to boycott a business whose positions they don’t like, it is another to bring the boot of government down upon “wrong-thinking” people.
    Who said it first, that evil first asks for toleration, then parity, and then supremacy?

  • #4 Kitty

    At no point in the Baptist Press article did Dan Cathy say a word about the issue of same-sex marriage…

    Right Matthew, but on June 16th, ( a month before the Baptist Press article) Dan Cathy stated on the Ken Coleman show:

    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,’ and 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.

    And Dan Cathy is not, repeat not, on the record in this story as taking any position on that issue.

    Yeah, who cares? It’s the position he took one month earlier that started this so called “manufactured firestorm .

  • #4 Kitty

    At no point in the Baptist Press article did Dan Cathy say a word about the issue of same-sex marriage…

    Right Matthew, but on June 16th, ( a month before the Baptist Press article) Dan Cathy stated on the Ken Coleman show:

    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,’ and 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.

    And Dan Cathy is not, repeat not, on the record in this story as taking any position on that issue.

    Yeah, who cares? It’s the position he took one month earlier that started this so called “manufactured firestorm .

  • formerly just steve

    This is a tactic that’s worked for them in the past and they will unashamedly keep using it. It doesn’t matter who gets ruined in the process. Make no mistake, tolerance has nothing to do with it.

  • formerly just steve

    This is a tactic that’s worked for them in the past and they will unashamedly keep using it. It doesn’t matter who gets ruined in the process. Make no mistake, tolerance has nothing to do with it.

  • James Sarver

    My next Chick-fil-A will taste even better now that I know the Thought Police and shrill, vindictive advocates of the gay agenda are foaming at the mouth over it. And they have peach milkshakes there too…

  • James Sarver

    My next Chick-fil-A will taste even better now that I know the Thought Police and shrill, vindictive advocates of the gay agenda are foaming at the mouth over it. And they have peach milkshakes there too…

  • Michael B.

    “Opponents of gay marriage are being demonized”

    But won’t proponents of gay marriage likely burn in hell? My god won’t torture you for eternity if you believe that homosexuality is wrong.

    I expect that as time goes on, an anti-gay marriage position will be reviled as much as an anti-interracial marriage position. It’s already the case that if you’re anti-gay marriage, you almost have to apologize for it, like in such slobbering statement as, “I’m only for traditional marriage, *but* {insert comment about how we should be respectful towards gays here and how civil unions are probably okay}”.

  • Michael B.

    “Opponents of gay marriage are being demonized”

    But won’t proponents of gay marriage likely burn in hell? My god won’t torture you for eternity if you believe that homosexuality is wrong.

    I expect that as time goes on, an anti-gay marriage position will be reviled as much as an anti-interracial marriage position. It’s already the case that if you’re anti-gay marriage, you almost have to apologize for it, like in such slobbering statement as, “I’m only for traditional marriage, *but* {insert comment about how we should be respectful towards gays here and how civil unions are probably okay}”.

  • Trey

    I boycott those progressive (read insidious) organizations I can, but I know that God provides through some of them. The homosecularists are much like their political forefathers (Bolsheviks and Nazis).

  • Trey

    I boycott those progressive (read insidious) organizations I can, but I know that God provides through some of them. The homosecularists are much like their political forefathers (Bolsheviks and Nazis).

  • Joe

    I don’t have a problem with individuals deciding not to spend their money at Chick-fil-A; but when the government withholds permits or otherwise bans them, we have a serious problem. Let the market decide whether the combination of tasty chicken, price and beliefs of the company’s founder = success or failure.

    Also aren’t most Chick-fil-As franchise operations? In other words, isn’t there a lot of collateral damage

  • Joe

    I don’t have a problem with individuals deciding not to spend their money at Chick-fil-A; but when the government withholds permits or otherwise bans them, we have a serious problem. Let the market decide whether the combination of tasty chicken, price and beliefs of the company’s founder = success or failure.

    Also aren’t most Chick-fil-As franchise operations? In other words, isn’t there a lot of collateral damage

  • Tom Hering

    What if I made up different stuff, and told you Chick-fil-a tests the taste of its products using a process that involves aborted fetal tissue? Would it still be fascist to boycott the company? How come nobody howled about liars or fascism or the thought police when Pepsico was the target of the religious right for a whole year?

  • Tom Hering

    What if I made up different stuff, and told you Chick-fil-a tests the taste of its products using a process that involves aborted fetal tissue? Would it still be fascist to boycott the company? How come nobody howled about liars or fascism or the thought police when Pepsico was the target of the religious right for a whole year?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    What Joe says. When politicians decide to, or not to, issue permits based on the real or perceived political stances of the company or its leaders, we’ve lost a lot of our freedom.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    What Joe says. When politicians decide to, or not to, issue permits based on the real or perceived political stances of the company or its leaders, we’ve lost a lot of our freedom.

  • Cincinnatus

    I don’t see the big deal. Groups tend to “attack” or sometimes even boycott (!!!) companies or organizations that support something they oppose. Christians boycott (or threaten to boycott) Nabisco over gay oreos; gay activists threaten to boycott Chik-Fil-A because its president opposes gay marriage. *yawn*

    Given that Chik-Fil-A’s are usually located in conservative locales, and that their customer base verges on fanatical (I don’t get it: it’s not that good), this won’t even touch their pocketbook. And the restaurant is still free to advocate whatever cause he wishes–no one is threatening his ability to do that. It’s also unclear why a chicken restaurant needs a political agenda anyway.

    To me, the real problem isn’t the boycott itself–boycotts are just silly–but that the bounds of acceptable discourse seem to be narrowing, narrowing, narrowing. Once, an issue like this would be something we would discuss in public, without needing to resort to the “brute” methods of boycott, etc. After all, the Courts, the Administration, and public opinion are on the side of gay activists at this point. Boycotts are reserved for marginal issues that aren’t receiving sufficient public attention. Do we really have to launch a sanctimonious movement against everyone who disagrees with us about anything? I deeply disagree with the public stances of essentially every major company I patronize. Heck, the bars I frequent are owned by folks whose politics radically depart from mine. Do I need to get all offended and boycott them all? It’s not like CFA is supporting Jewish concentration camps or anything; they’re merely supporting a policy position that is still perfectly mainstream in America.

  • Cincinnatus

    I don’t see the big deal. Groups tend to “attack” or sometimes even boycott (!!!) companies or organizations that support something they oppose. Christians boycott (or threaten to boycott) Nabisco over gay oreos; gay activists threaten to boycott Chik-Fil-A because its president opposes gay marriage. *yawn*

    Given that Chik-Fil-A’s are usually located in conservative locales, and that their customer base verges on fanatical (I don’t get it: it’s not that good), this won’t even touch their pocketbook. And the restaurant is still free to advocate whatever cause he wishes–no one is threatening his ability to do that. It’s also unclear why a chicken restaurant needs a political agenda anyway.

    To me, the real problem isn’t the boycott itself–boycotts are just silly–but that the bounds of acceptable discourse seem to be narrowing, narrowing, narrowing. Once, an issue like this would be something we would discuss in public, without needing to resort to the “brute” methods of boycott, etc. After all, the Courts, the Administration, and public opinion are on the side of gay activists at this point. Boycotts are reserved for marginal issues that aren’t receiving sufficient public attention. Do we really have to launch a sanctimonious movement against everyone who disagrees with us about anything? I deeply disagree with the public stances of essentially every major company I patronize. Heck, the bars I frequent are owned by folks whose politics radically depart from mine. Do I need to get all offended and boycott them all? It’s not like CFA is supporting Jewish concentration camps or anything; they’re merely supporting a policy position that is still perfectly mainstream in America.

  • James Sarver

    Tom Hering @ #9,

    “How come nobody howled about liars or fascism or the thought police when Pepsico was the target of the religious right for a whole year?”

    Maybe because they could distinguish between acting against a business practice as opposed to acting against how a CEO thinks about a social issue.

  • James Sarver

    Tom Hering @ #9,

    “How come nobody howled about liars or fascism or the thought police when Pepsico was the target of the religious right for a whole year?”

    Maybe because they could distinguish between acting against a business practice as opposed to acting against how a CEO thinks about a social issue.

  • LAJ

    This is why it is a good thing that no one has to disclose who gives them money for their campaigns. That way companies don’t get boycotted simply for supporting a pro business candidate who also happens to be pro marraige or pro life as happened to Target a while back.

  • LAJ

    This is why it is a good thing that no one has to disclose who gives them money for their campaigns. That way companies don’t get boycotted simply for supporting a pro business candidate who also happens to be pro marraige or pro life as happened to Target a while back.

  • P.C.

    Let’s see. My wife and I complete a “Walk For Life” event for the local Pregnancy Resource Center. At the end of the walk, they hand us a voucher for a free meal at the local Chick-fil-A. We never use them but go to the local franchise and pay for our meal. We want to support them financially as they support our pro-life philosophy. What other nation-wide company has the courage to promote events such as this? Few that I know of.

  • P.C.

    Let’s see. My wife and I complete a “Walk For Life” event for the local Pregnancy Resource Center. At the end of the walk, they hand us a voucher for a free meal at the local Chick-fil-A. We never use them but go to the local franchise and pay for our meal. We want to support them financially as they support our pro-life philosophy. What other nation-wide company has the courage to promote events such as this? Few that I know of.

  • rlewer

    Were there still people that didn’t know that Chic-filA believed in Christian principles? They are pointedly not open on Sundays. They sponsor Christian events.

    Isn’t it the liberals who are always talking about tolerance of others ideas?

    Maybe they will have the IRS make a special investigation like they do for Romney contributers. Maybe they can get people fired like they did in California for anyone who opposed gay marriage.

  • rlewer

    Were there still people that didn’t know that Chic-filA believed in Christian principles? They are pointedly not open on Sundays. They sponsor Christian events.

    Isn’t it the liberals who are always talking about tolerance of others ideas?

    Maybe they will have the IRS make a special investigation like they do for Romney contributers. Maybe they can get people fired like they did in California for anyone who opposed gay marriage.

  • Jon

    I do think the shout-down and thought-police scare-tactics are very childish.

    But it’s certainly not shocking that some uber-left bastions in the upper North-East and the Great Lakes region would look down upon an intrusion by an unsophisticated, traditional southern-fried company?

    Seriously, how many supporters of the uber-left-agenda actually eat at CFA anyway?

    CFA is known to be a Christian company. You know what they stand for, the company president doesn’t have to say it. And it has a loyal following.

    But, people will vote with their feet, their wallets and stomachs.

    So, if anything, this boycott effort will turn out just like the notable disconnect between public opinion polls and actual balloting on gay vs. traditional marriage, where traditional marriage continues to win at the ballot booth every time.

    Going to eat at CFA is sort of like stepping into the ballot booth. I suspect that the silent (closet?) majority traditionalists will continue to patronize CFA in actual spite of the boycott.

    I predict we may see either no change in CFA’s revenue–or maybe even an up-tick in their revenue over this whole “shout-down,” “shaming” attempt by the uber-left zealots.

  • Jon

    I do think the shout-down and thought-police scare-tactics are very childish.

    But it’s certainly not shocking that some uber-left bastions in the upper North-East and the Great Lakes region would look down upon an intrusion by an unsophisticated, traditional southern-fried company?

    Seriously, how many supporters of the uber-left-agenda actually eat at CFA anyway?

    CFA is known to be a Christian company. You know what they stand for, the company president doesn’t have to say it. And it has a loyal following.

    But, people will vote with their feet, their wallets and stomachs.

    So, if anything, this boycott effort will turn out just like the notable disconnect between public opinion polls and actual balloting on gay vs. traditional marriage, where traditional marriage continues to win at the ballot booth every time.

    Going to eat at CFA is sort of like stepping into the ballot booth. I suspect that the silent (closet?) majority traditionalists will continue to patronize CFA in actual spite of the boycott.

    I predict we may see either no change in CFA’s revenue–or maybe even an up-tick in their revenue over this whole “shout-down,” “shaming” attempt by the uber-left zealots.

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 12, you seem to have missed the point that this sort of thing – including making stuff up – isn’t unique to the left. Have you ever done a Google search for “conservative boycott”?

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 12, you seem to have missed the point that this sort of thing – including making stuff up – isn’t unique to the left. Have you ever done a Google search for “conservative boycott”?

  • Carl Vehse

    The Mountain View, CA, city council is stalling on approving permits for a Chick fil A restaurant. Opponents have put up a smokescreen that the drive-thru would be “more hazardous to bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition, three heritage trees would have to be removed.”

  • Carl Vehse

    The Mountain View, CA, city council is stalling on approving permits for a Chick fil A restaurant. Opponents have put up a smokescreen that the drive-thru would be “more hazardous to bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition, three heritage trees would have to be removed.”

  • Jon

    The Bay Area, Carl. Another bastion of uber-left.

  • Jon

    The Bay Area, Carl. Another bastion of uber-left.

  • DonS

    “Tolerance” and “diversity” are selective concepts, to be sure, especially as viewed by those on the left side of our political sphere in the present day.

    Certainly, we are all free to boycott those companies that we disagree with, for whatever reason, including legal and peaceful public protests, media ads, or whatever else our hearts desire. These boycotts take place by those occupying both sides of the political spectrum. However, as Joe said above, when government intervenes to discriminate against a particular company because of its political viewpoints, that is illegal and unconstitutional. Fortunately for these petty little governments, Chick-fil-A would never dream of taking legal action to force itself on a community. It will just build somewhere else, where it is wanted, and those residents of the narrow-minded discriminatory community who might have enjoyed eating at their local Chick-fil-A will pay the price for petty government.

    Analogizing to Pepsico t0 make the liberals’ favorite point (it’s OK because everybody does it) ignores the fact that no government made any effort or indication that they would discriminate against Pepsico in any way over the fetal tissue issue. It was purely a legal private protest action.

  • DonS

    “Tolerance” and “diversity” are selective concepts, to be sure, especially as viewed by those on the left side of our political sphere in the present day.

    Certainly, we are all free to boycott those companies that we disagree with, for whatever reason, including legal and peaceful public protests, media ads, or whatever else our hearts desire. These boycotts take place by those occupying both sides of the political spectrum. However, as Joe said above, when government intervenes to discriminate against a particular company because of its political viewpoints, that is illegal and unconstitutional. Fortunately for these petty little governments, Chick-fil-A would never dream of taking legal action to force itself on a community. It will just build somewhere else, where it is wanted, and those residents of the narrow-minded discriminatory community who might have enjoyed eating at their local Chick-fil-A will pay the price for petty government.

    Analogizing to Pepsico t0 make the liberals’ favorite point (it’s OK because everybody does it) ignores the fact that no government made any effort or indication that they would discriminate against Pepsico in any way over the fetal tissue issue. It was purely a legal private protest action.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    If I were Chick-fil-A, I would sue the Boston government for discriminatory practices.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    If I were Chick-fil-A, I would sue the Boston government for discriminatory practices.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    BTW, to all of us Christians here: why are we still surprised at the fact that the world is becoming increasingly more hostile to us? I believe Jesus Himself warned us about this in the book of St. John, as did St. John himself in one of his epistles.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    BTW, to all of us Christians here: why are we still surprised at the fact that the world is becoming increasingly more hostile to us? I believe Jesus Himself warned us about this in the book of St. John, as did St. John himself in one of his epistles.

  • Tom Hering

    Don @ 20, my point (in response to some comments here) was to ask why lying and boycotting is a fascist impulse if the left does it, but not if the right does it. Not “it’s OK because everybody does it.”

  • Tom Hering

    Don @ 20, my point (in response to some comments here) was to ask why lying and boycotting is a fascist impulse if the left does it, but not if the right does it. Not “it’s OK because everybody does it.”

  • Jon

    And the Chi-Town Mayor, Rahm Emanuel weighs in: “”Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.”

    Yup, we all know what are “Chicago values.”

  • Jon

    And the Chi-Town Mayor, Rahm Emanuel weighs in: “”Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.”

    Yup, we all know what are “Chicago values.”

  • DonS

    Hi, Tom @ 23: Sorry — my bad. I know that you don’t say that kind of thing. There is nothing whatsoever fascistic about private protests, in fact, the contrary is true. Neither side should ever lie in making those protests, though, and we should be very careful about the information we spread, to ensure that it is fair and truthful.

    My point in referencing Pepsico was to clarify that no government made any effort I am aware of to “punish” Pepsico for its practices in some way. That is what I abhor about this Chick-fil-A issue — using the power of government to impose your political viewpoint IS fascistic.

  • DonS

    Hi, Tom @ 23: Sorry — my bad. I know that you don’t say that kind of thing. There is nothing whatsoever fascistic about private protests, in fact, the contrary is true. Neither side should ever lie in making those protests, though, and we should be very careful about the information we spread, to ensure that it is fair and truthful.

    My point in referencing Pepsico was to clarify that no government made any effort I am aware of to “punish” Pepsico for its practices in some way. That is what I abhor about this Chick-fil-A issue — using the power of government to impose your political viewpoint IS fascistic.

  • Carl Vehse

    Regarding the red herring (@9) about Pepsico –

    Excerpted from the April 30, 2012 article, “Pepsi Stops Using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines to Test Flavors“:

    After months of pro-life protests and opposition, PepsiCo has indicated it will alter its contract with biotech firm Senomyx Inc., which uses cells from a baby killed [read murdered] in an abortion to conduct flavor testing. [Pepsico had previously denied they were using such aborted fetal cells in testing.]

    In a letter to her group, PepsiCo’s VP of Global Public Policy, Paul Boykas stated that “Senomyx will not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo.”

    “We took the matter very seriously,” stated Mr. Boykas. “We have an official Statement on Responsible Research and we intend to live by that policy.”

    That policy precludes any research by PepsiCo — or third parties they fund — from using human tissue or cell lines derived from embryos or babies who are victimized [read murdered] by abortions.

    [Children of God for Life leader Debi] Vinnedge told LifeNews the PepsiCo decision means an immediate end to the boycott that began in May 2011– welcome news to both PepsiCo and their customers who have abstained from [read boycotted] their favorite beverages in protest.

  • Carl Vehse

    Regarding the red herring (@9) about Pepsico –

    Excerpted from the April 30, 2012 article, “Pepsi Stops Using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines to Test Flavors“:

    After months of pro-life protests and opposition, PepsiCo has indicated it will alter its contract with biotech firm Senomyx Inc., which uses cells from a baby killed [read murdered] in an abortion to conduct flavor testing. [Pepsico had previously denied they were using such aborted fetal cells in testing.]

    In a letter to her group, PepsiCo’s VP of Global Public Policy, Paul Boykas stated that “Senomyx will not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo.”

    “We took the matter very seriously,” stated Mr. Boykas. “We have an official Statement on Responsible Research and we intend to live by that policy.”

    That policy precludes any research by PepsiCo — or third parties they fund — from using human tissue or cell lines derived from embryos or babies who are victimized [read murdered] by abortions.

    [Children of God for Life leader Debi] Vinnedge told LifeNews the PepsiCo decision means an immediate end to the boycott that began in May 2011– welcome news to both PepsiCo and their customers who have abstained from [read boycotted] their favorite beverages in protest.

  • Tom Hering

    So Pepsico deciding to make it their official policy never to use testing that involves aborted fetal cells – in order to finally shut up a pressure group that had been spreading misinformation – is tantamount to an admission that they had in fact used aborted fetal cells in the past? I don’t think so. But it’s a nice way to spin it. It makes liars look like heroes.

  • Tom Hering

    So Pepsico deciding to make it their official policy never to use testing that involves aborted fetal cells – in order to finally shut up a pressure group that had been spreading misinformation – is tantamount to an admission that they had in fact used aborted fetal cells in the past? I don’t think so. But it’s a nice way to spin it. It makes liars look like heroes.

  • Patrick Kyle

    The time is coming when the church will suffer legal sanctions for preaching that various acts and attitudes are sinful. It will be a very clarifying moment

  • Patrick Kyle

    The time is coming when the church will suffer legal sanctions for preaching that various acts and attitudes are sinful. It will be a very clarifying moment

  • NavyMom

    Frankly, I’m fed up with the always-offended gay crowd. The nearest Chick-Fil-A to my little Kentucky town is 45 miles away, but we’re driving over tomorrow for lunch.

  • NavyMom

    Frankly, I’m fed up with the always-offended gay crowd. The nearest Chick-Fil-A to my little Kentucky town is 45 miles away, but we’re driving over tomorrow for lunch.

  • http://Insight P.e.

    We have become such a politically correct society that no one can utter a word without it being taken apart in twenty different directions. Isn’t that just as bad? Who gives the right to just certain individuals to pick at our opinions . When asked a question have we gotten to the level that we just say nothing. No one say anything . How does that measure up.? Thank God that we are different. Thank God .

  • http://Insight P.e.

    We have become such a politically correct society that no one can utter a word without it being taken apart in twenty different directions. Isn’t that just as bad? Who gives the right to just certain individuals to pick at our opinions . When asked a question have we gotten to the level that we just say nothing. No one say anything . How does that measure up.? Thank God that we are different. Thank God .

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. Hmm.

    But the interview and the controversial pro-family comments were not even about gay marriage.

    Yeah, I’m not really buying that. Okay, yes, technically, he didn’t explicitly mention gays or gay marriage.

    But when you talk about people shaking their fist at God and saying, “We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage”, when you talk about “the traditional family” and “the biblical definition of the family unit”, you’d have to have missed the last few decades of public discourse on the topic to think that doesn’t refer to gay marriage, at least in part.

    Besides, the company’s reaction seems to reinforce the media interpretation that the people in Veith’s post are complaining about. It’s not like Chick-fil-A issued a statement saying, “You’ve got us all wrong. We were only talking about preventing divorce among straights. We have no opinion on gay marriage as a company, nor do any of the charities we support.” No, in fact Chick-fil-A posted on their Facebook page that, “Going forward, our intent is to leave policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.” Going forward.

    Anyhow, Chick-fil-A (man, that is annoying to type) is, of course, free to support whatever charities they want. And individuals are equally free to organize any boycott efforts they want.

    Government leaders, however, are less free in how they may respond to this kerfuffle in their official capacity. Of course, if you’re a right-winger and indignant about politicians acting out of line to thwart private businesses doing their thing, you might ask yourself what you thought about the “Ground-Zero Mosque” a few years back, and if your attitude has changed now.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. Hmm.

    But the interview and the controversial pro-family comments were not even about gay marriage.

    Yeah, I’m not really buying that. Okay, yes, technically, he didn’t explicitly mention gays or gay marriage.

    But when you talk about people shaking their fist at God and saying, “We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage”, when you talk about “the traditional family” and “the biblical definition of the family unit”, you’d have to have missed the last few decades of public discourse on the topic to think that doesn’t refer to gay marriage, at least in part.

    Besides, the company’s reaction seems to reinforce the media interpretation that the people in Veith’s post are complaining about. It’s not like Chick-fil-A issued a statement saying, “You’ve got us all wrong. We were only talking about preventing divorce among straights. We have no opinion on gay marriage as a company, nor do any of the charities we support.” No, in fact Chick-fil-A posted on their Facebook page that, “Going forward, our intent is to leave policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.” Going forward.

    Anyhow, Chick-fil-A (man, that is annoying to type) is, of course, free to support whatever charities they want. And individuals are equally free to organize any boycott efforts they want.

    Government leaders, however, are less free in how they may respond to this kerfuffle in their official capacity. Of course, if you’re a right-winger and indignant about politicians acting out of line to thwart private businesses doing their thing, you might ask yourself what you thought about the “Ground-Zero Mosque” a few years back, and if your attitude has changed now.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, as my many liberal Facebook friends have not failed to remind me, Chick-fil-A could be handling this better. Their explanation on why there are no longer muppets in their Kids Meals seems a bit dodgy.

    And I don’t know who’s behind this Facebook sock-puppetry, but I sure hope it’s not Chick-fil-A’s PR firm, because that is not helping!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, as my many liberal Facebook friends have not failed to remind me, Chick-fil-A could be handling this better. Their explanation on why there are no longer muppets in their Kids Meals seems a bit dodgy.

    And I don’t know who’s behind this Facebook sock-puppetry, but I sure hope it’s not Chick-fil-A’s PR firm, because that is not helping!

  • rlewer

    The complaining people are complaining about Chic-filA saying what the Bible says. They have a right to disagree and Chic-filA has a right to disagree with them.

    Chic-filA is not going the change their beliefs because of pressure. And they will still be closed on Sunday.

    “Chic-filA’s values are not Chicago”s values.” Really?

  • rlewer

    The complaining people are complaining about Chic-filA saying what the Bible says. They have a right to disagree and Chic-filA has a right to disagree with them.

    Chic-filA is not going the change their beliefs because of pressure. And they will still be closed on Sunday.

    “Chic-filA’s values are not Chicago”s values.” Really?

  • Orianna Laun

    Does anyone remember they whole “boycott Procter & Gamble” because they had something in their logo that indicated some religious belief opposite Christianity? I vaguely recall what it was about. It didn’t stop my family from purchasing their products. (The cost of their products did that.) How about the boycott of Disneyempire for their stance directly opposite of Chick-Fil-A? Remember how those who boycotted them were mocked? Who stopped going to Whole Foods a few years ago over healthcare? That was what that was about, right?
    People have the right to choose where to their money. Yes, as said before, government leaders have a more difficult time with making decisions as to what businesses are to be allowed to be built. However, if a business is a legal, valid business, ideology shouldn’t matter. I know, Chick-Fil-A or Hooters–which one would you want in your neighborhood, Ms. Laun? Dunno. I hear both serve chicken.
    As for the delay of the store in CA, that likely IS because of trees. After all, they turned off the water to save the fish. . .
    I apologize, maybe I shouldn’t be so glib. This is serious after all, as J. Dean @22 indicated. The issue is that if your beliefs are not mainstream, that is to say, politically correct, you will be punished by boycott or fine or jest. This, however, we already knew.

  • Orianna Laun

    Does anyone remember they whole “boycott Procter & Gamble” because they had something in their logo that indicated some religious belief opposite Christianity? I vaguely recall what it was about. It didn’t stop my family from purchasing their products. (The cost of their products did that.) How about the boycott of Disneyempire for their stance directly opposite of Chick-Fil-A? Remember how those who boycotted them were mocked? Who stopped going to Whole Foods a few years ago over healthcare? That was what that was about, right?
    People have the right to choose where to their money. Yes, as said before, government leaders have a more difficult time with making decisions as to what businesses are to be allowed to be built. However, if a business is a legal, valid business, ideology shouldn’t matter. I know, Chick-Fil-A or Hooters–which one would you want in your neighborhood, Ms. Laun? Dunno. I hear both serve chicken.
    As for the delay of the store in CA, that likely IS because of trees. After all, they turned off the water to save the fish. . .
    I apologize, maybe I shouldn’t be so glib. This is serious after all, as J. Dean @22 indicated. The issue is that if your beliefs are not mainstream, that is to say, politically correct, you will be punished by boycott or fine or jest. This, however, we already knew.

  • reg

    The mayor of Boston has stated he will block chic-fil A from opening in the city of Boston. The mayor of Boston does not have a clue about the first amendment. As an individual he has a right to vote with his feet and boycott companies he has any issue with. As a government official he has no right to withhold permits, etc based upon the stated views of an individual owner of a company, particularly where the company itself does not discriminate in either who they hire or who they serve. Where are the cries of freedom of speech from the ACLU types and the liberal honchos? As a moderate from eastern Massachusetts I am embarrassed by the the mayor of Boston’s recent actions.

  • reg

    The mayor of Boston has stated he will block chic-fil A from opening in the city of Boston. The mayor of Boston does not have a clue about the first amendment. As an individual he has a right to vote with his feet and boycott companies he has any issue with. As a government official he has no right to withhold permits, etc based upon the stated views of an individual owner of a company, particularly where the company itself does not discriminate in either who they hire or who they serve. Where are the cries of freedom of speech from the ACLU types and the liberal honchos? As a moderate from eastern Massachusetts I am embarrassed by the the mayor of Boston’s recent actions.

  • Tom Hering

    reg @ 35, if the ACLU is willing to fight for the KKK’s right to adopt a highway in Georgia, I’ve no doubt they’d be willing to take up a freedom of speech case for Chick-fil-a. But first, Chick-fil-a has to kind of get the ball rolling by deciding to take the matter to court, you know?

  • Tom Hering

    reg @ 35, if the ACLU is willing to fight for the KKK’s right to adopt a highway in Georgia, I’ve no doubt they’d be willing to take up a freedom of speech case for Chick-fil-a. But first, Chick-fil-a has to kind of get the ball rolling by deciding to take the matter to court, you know?

  • Joe

    Tom — it is a complete crap shoot as to what the ACLU will or will not do.

    The ACLU is not really THE ACLU as we often think about it or talk about, each local state affiliate is allowed to take on whatever cause or case it deems fits the general mission of up holding individual rights. The national organization does a lot of lobbying and their positions are generally liberal. The state affiliates do the vast majority of the litigation and while the perception is that they tend to support the liberal side of things in litigation, I have never seen any actual data and I know of cases where this is not the case.

    Gun rights are a great example of the fracture. The national organization’s official policy is that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own guns and thus gun issues are outside the scope of the mission. The Texas chapter has long held a different view and has lobbied the state government for less restrictive gun laws and has joined with the NRA in challenging gun laws in court. Also, there is at least one ACLU chapter on the east coast that is currently challenging some gun laws (can’t remember the state right now).

  • Joe

    Tom — it is a complete crap shoot as to what the ACLU will or will not do.

    The ACLU is not really THE ACLU as we often think about it or talk about, each local state affiliate is allowed to take on whatever cause or case it deems fits the general mission of up holding individual rights. The national organization does a lot of lobbying and their positions are generally liberal. The state affiliates do the vast majority of the litigation and while the perception is that they tend to support the liberal side of things in litigation, I have never seen any actual data and I know of cases where this is not the case.

    Gun rights are a great example of the fracture. The national organization’s official policy is that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own guns and thus gun issues are outside the scope of the mission. The Texas chapter has long held a different view and has lobbied the state government for less restrictive gun laws and has joined with the NRA in challenging gun laws in court. Also, there is at least one ACLU chapter on the east coast that is currently challenging some gun laws (can’t remember the state right now).

  • Tom Hering

    Thanks for the correction, Joe. Very interesting.

  • Tom Hering

    Thanks for the correction, Joe. Very interesting.

  • Tom Hering

    Oh, and Dr. Veith: new posts (s) for Thursday, please. It’s about 8:30 AM Central, and I’m jonesing.

  • Tom Hering

    Oh, and Dr. Veith: new posts (s) for Thursday, please. It’s about 8:30 AM Central, and I’m jonesing.

  • Tim Schenks

    Who said it first, that evil first asks for toleration, then parity, and then supremacy?

    C.P. Krauth, “The Conservative Reformation”

  • Tim Schenks

    Who said it first, that evil first asks for toleration, then parity, and then supremacy?

    C.P. Krauth, “The Conservative Reformation”

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Day « Dale Tedder's Journal

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Day « Dale Tedder's Journal

  • Michelle Washington

    Gotta love those liberals. No, really. Love them, because if it weren’t for their leftist ideas, conservatives wouldn’t have a rally cry! Ever the victims (i.e. “our rights are being trudged upon!”) Eat the darn chicken already and read your bible and give to whichever anti-gay organization you so choose. Just stop whining!

  • Michelle Washington

    Gotta love those liberals. No, really. Love them, because if it weren’t for their leftist ideas, conservatives wouldn’t have a rally cry! Ever the victims (i.e. “our rights are being trudged upon!”) Eat the darn chicken already and read your bible and give to whichever anti-gay organization you so choose. Just stop whining!

  • rlewer

    In this country it is still illegal for the government to discriminate against people because of their religious views (or any other kind of views). That is not whining. It is a fact.

  • rlewer

    In this country it is still illegal for the government to discriminate against people because of their religious views (or any other kind of views). That is not whining. It is a fact.

  • Fws

    Discrimination, per se, is not illegal in the usa. It is in fact considered to be a fundamental duty of the government in some cases. FAct.

  • Fws

    Discrimination, per se, is not illegal in the usa. It is in fact considered to be a fundamental duty of the government in some cases. FAct.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X