LA and Chick-Fil-A

People are often taken in by my MSM spoof reporter Todd Unctuous, then whenever he appears, sure enough, some MSM smart aleck comes along and almost makes Todd look smart.

This time it’s Michael Hiltzick writing in the LA Times here about Chick-Fil-A’s Dan Cathy ‘getting involved in politics’ when he expressed his opinion about gay marriage. I think Hiltzick must have gone to the same journalism course as Todd. He says Cathy was involved in politics?? Dan Cathy’s comments were in a religious journal and on a religious radio show and the man never mentioned a politician, a political party, who to vote for or any particular legislation or political body. Neither is it shown that Chick-Fil-A or the Cathy family support any particular candidates or party or have ever interfered in politics in any way.

Is this man and his company to be blamed for interfering in politics simply for being opposed to gay marriage? If so, then anyone who speaks publicly against this measure may be blamed for interfering in politics, and even if Mr Cathy was involved in politics why on earth would there be anything wrong in that? The whole political system in this country is run by businessmen who get involved in politics in one way or another. They’re openly involved in funding candidates, backing political parties, funding lobbyists etc. Why should the owner of a restaurant chain not have the freedom to get involved in politics if he wants to, and why should he not get involved in an issue like gay marriage if he wants to?

Where was the outcry when Ben and Jerry’s named an ice cream in support of gay marriage or Starbucks declared their corporate policy (not just one executive’s opinion) to be in favor of specific legislation supporting gay marriage. Why is Starbucks and Ben and Jerry’s allowed to support specific legislation in support of gay marriage with corporate policies, public marketing decisions and explicit information and public relations exercises, but Mr Cathy and Chick-Fil-A must remain silent? Who was really getting involved in politics? Starbucks, Ben and Jerry’s, Nike, Microsoft and other companies. They did so with public policy statements, ‘values’ statements and well funded propaganda.

The equivalent of Starbuck’s move would be for Chick-Fil-A to issue a public corporate policy statement in formal opposition to gay marriage and to fund measures to repeal it. An equivalent action by Chick-Fil-A to Ben and Jerry’s marketing and publicity blitz would be for Chick-Fil-A to name a new sandwich ‘The Mom and Dad Traditional Chicken Sandwich’ with a marketing campaign saying, “If you support Mom and Dad not Dad and Dad–then buy this sandwich, along with a media blitz to convince people to be against gay marriage.

The hypocrisy, lying and mendacity of the current propaganda in this country is shocking. I’m not the paranoid conspiracy theory type, but when you see such blatant lying and manipulation of the truth you can’t help but fear for the future.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, in NYC the speaker of the city council sent a letter on official stationery urging a local college to kick Chick-Fil-A off campus. The story’s here.

Christian Bakers Fined $135,000
Peter and the Empty Promises of Progressives
Why Hillary Will Win
How Feminism Kills Women
  • John

    Preach it, Father. Preach it.

  • Glenn Juday

    Once we crossed the line that not only denied the right to existence of the only truly innocent among us – the unborn – but actually concocted the lie that the unjust taking of innocent human life was a constitutional right, well what is left? Just details. We now live among various lie manufacturing machines. A particularly new form of entertainment is to second-guess the lies, and figure out the real meaning behind the crafting and spreading of particular lies. It’s a sort of attempt to arrive at higher truth through lies, or even a discerning a fashion statement as the powerful clothe themselves in the latest and most daring or attractive lies in their never ending scramble for the highest position made up of the emptiest things.

    The only antidote is truth, or rather The Truth. Many have given up on even the concept of truth, as much as they may long for it. Often they speak as if this defeat is inevitable, since the death of truth is so fashionably new. But actually they are reactionaries who harken back to Pontius Pilate, who said “Truth, What is that?.” But truth is so real that is is a person. Truth was standing right next to Pilate when he said. Yet he did not, would not, recognize the Truth.

    And so it is today. People are drowning is a sea of lies. Yet for many, the last thing they are prepared to do is embrace truth. Some are even loosing the habit of seeking it at all. For now, truth must be an insurgent movement. But truth will win in the end. And all who adhere to truth will come to see it as the best thing they ever did. Besides, the interlocking framework of lies is getting harder and harder to sustain, and it will, as a certain fact, fall utterly.

  • Reluctant Liberal

    Certainly some people are just upset about Cathy speaking up, but there’s a bit more to it than that. Chick-fil-A (the actual company with company money) gave lots of money to a group that could reasonably be considered a hate group. That group published materials that said that the ultimate gay agenda was to legalize pedophilia and other materials that suggested gay people were terrorists. That sounds like a hate group to me, so at least some people have a bit of a reason to be upset.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    Citation needed. If you’re talking about Focus on the Family, I expect to see all those libs boycotting the New York Jets, too.

  • Michelle Moody

    Had my bisuit this morning. YUM! EAT MOR CHIKEN everyone!!! They have salads and grilled chicken too.

  • Bernard

    I’ve never heard this before, It’s good too know. Is it true?

  • Nathan

    I’d like to see something backing this up, a link to a news story or at least the name of the “hate group” mentioned. Of course, even if true, this is a bit of a red herring as the outrage has been over the comments made by the owner not over any monies being given to a hate group.

  • Reluctant Liberal

    I’ll try to dig up some links to my claims. And I’m not trying to validate all of the outrage, I’m just pointing out that at least some of the outrage is more justified than it’s being given credit for.

    That said, I think the people who are trying to go after Chick-fil-A legally are being awful. The private views of public servants should not get to decide who can open a restaurant in a city.

  • Tera

    I was referred to this article by my aunt, who seemed to think Father Longenecker had an excellent point that she must share with her liberal niece and sister.

    I think he misses the point altogether. If Cathy had merely voiced his personal opinion about homosexuality, I’m sure people would have had a issue with it, but I don’t think it would have gone to the point of rallying against the company or calling him out in the media.

    However, proponents of equal rights for homosexual unions have long known about Chic-Fi-Le, and have been boycotting it for years. The only thing Cathy’s statement and the public reaction to it have done is brought this out into mainstream media.

    It’s not what anyone representing the company has said (which has been contradicting, actually) but how they spend their money that people protest and call political:

    Marriage & Family Legacy Fund
    Fellowship Of Christian Athletes
    National Christian Foundation
    Focus On The Family
    Eagle Forum
    Exodus International
    Family Research Council

    These organizations include anti-gay “ministries” , media groups (which have clear political agendas), and political mobilization groups.

    Now, Chic-Fi-Le is not a publicly traded company. It’s 100% privately held. So not only does Cathy every right to speak his mind on the subject of politics, but he also has every right to invest his money into organizations that others find repugnant. And the public has every right to know about these donations and choose for themselves whether they want their money to be indirectly invested in the same organizations.

  • R

    The Family Research Council.

    Also, has it occurred to anyone here that the reason why the pro gay marriage camp is so much more proactive about things like boycots is that this issue directly effects thier lives? If gay marriage is legal, you have to live in a world with married gays. Big deal. If it is illegal, my homosexual friend cannot marry the person he is in love with and wants to spend the rest of his life with. One side makes a bigger deal about it because the real world stakes are higher.

  • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    Your friend can live with his boyfriend. No one is forcing him not to. Your friend can love his boyfriend. Your friend can have a civil union to establish legal partnership rights. Why exactly does your friend want to marry his boyfriend anyway? What does marriage give him that he does not already have?

  • Hmmm

    Reluctant, let’s look at all the groups on both sides of this issue and what they stand for.. Then ask yourself which are hate groups

  • R

    Those same things are true of me and my wife, or you and yours. How about we eliminate legal marriage altogether in favor of civil unions for all?(I actually think this). Marriage can be just a religous institution and everyone can be happy. However, the battle for civil rights in the US established that separate cannot ever be equal, so we either ought to get rid of legal marriage altogether or make it available for same-sex unions. I don’t really care what individuals in your religion do or don’t do in thier cathedrals, so I think this can be amicable for all…

  • Amy

    I just don’t see marriage as a civil rights issue. No one is being denied the right to vote. No one is being put in jail and forced to work in coal mines on trumped-up charges like blacks were from the 1870s on. There are many regulations on the books about who can and cannot marry. You can’t marry your cousin, your own child, your parent, or someone under a certain age. These rules are there to protect both parties and any children who may come from these unions. Study after study shows that kids do best in a family with both a mom and a dad. Families are the building blocks of society. Where the family goes, our nation goes. Right now the family is in bad shape. Not coincidentally, so is our country.

  • Reluctant Liberal

    Let’s not look at the groups on both sides of the issue. That’s simply an “appeal to authority” fallacy.

    But, to more directly address what you said, I’m not particularly familiar with any pro-marriage equality group, but I’m pretty sure a group that calls gay people terrorists is a hate group.

  • Sentinelle Perdue

    The Family Research Council has certainly put out some stupid articles, and some of their employees are absolute idiots, but labeling them a hate group is rather rich. You sound like you’re just parroting somebody else’s talking point. You know that gay people actually work at FRC, right?

    Do you even know what a hate group is? Please define.

  • Mystere

    @Amy, if you’re going to make an appeal about children doing better in “traditional” families (by Abrahmic religious traditions – the ancient Greeks and Romans had homosexual families), then why not petition for children of single parents be removed and placed in two-parent heterosexual families? Obviously a child would do better, wouldn’t they? The truth of it is that children thrive in stable families, and with our heterosexual divorce rate and the studies that show gay couples are often more stable because there is no gender thought barrier (check Pychology Today, I don’t have a link, I had the printed mag), it could be argued that gay families are better, more supportive environments. Incest, pedophilia, and bestiality are illegal to prevent genetic disease and the burdens and suffering it entails and to protect those beings that cannot give consent. If two competent, consenting adults want to get married, is it your right to tell them that they can’t just because your religion says it’s wrong? Or because they can’t produce children? Why not deny infertile couples marriage, if marriage is about procreation? Why not dissolve marriages after the spouses pass childbearing age? Because it’s ridiculous and invasive into individual lives. What’s any different when the adults happen to be the same sex? Why not allow groups of consenting adults marry? I believe polyamory produces the village it takes to raise a child. (This is not polygamy. Polyamory invokes all individuals being in an equal relationship with each other individual in the group, where polygamy is one person – usually a man – that has individual marriages with multiple women and essentially winds up with a harem.)

    Who are you to deny spousal rights – hospital visitation, spousal health insurance coverage, inheritance without taxation, etc. – to a long-standing partnership just because they’re gay? Marriage, and not civil unions, allow these things. And they aren’t recognized where I live, regardless of whether it is a legal civil union somewhere else. Marriage makes a stronger argument legally than a civil union.

    My point is that it isn’t religion’s place to tell our government how to rule. It isn’t government’s place to rule on religion or personal lives. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one. It won’t hurt you. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Let people live their lives.

  • manny

    Some of the above commenters appear to have a misunderstanding of what marriage is and for them I recommend reading this recent blog post:

  • Reluctant Liberal

    I’m going to go with “a group that perpetuates hate.” And I could care less that some gay people work at the FRC. Some Jews worked for the Nazis, too. (and I am not saying that the FRC is the equivalent of the Nazis. The Nazis were far more despicable and caused far more harm than the FRC. The Nazi/Jew collaborator dynamic was just the first that popped into my head.)

  • Gerry

    “Where was the outcry when Ben and Jerry’s named an ice cream in support of gay marriage or Starbucks declared their corporate policy (not just one executive’s opinion) to be in favor of specific legislation supporting gay marriage.”
    I seem to remember more than one boycott tactic against Starbuck, B&J, JCPenney, Oreo, Apple, right now against Amazon, and so on. So you see, there WAS outrage by your side, just apparently not as widespread, right?

    If you want to lie, father, maybe you’d be better doing it claims that are less verifiable, which leads me to a second quote of yours..
    “The hypocrisy, lying and mendacity of the current propaganda in this country is shocking. I’m not the paranoid conspiracy theory type, but when you see such blatant LYING AND MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH, you can’t help but fear for the future.”
    Emphasis mine.

  • Dave Pawlak

    Why base a civil partnership on a sexual relationship? I know siblings, cousins, widowed/divorced parents with an unmarried child, and even friends who would benefit in the same way.

  • jaykay

    Gerry: where exactly has Fr. L “lied”? What he said was: “Where was the outcry when…”? That’s asking a question, not lying, and to claim that it is such is just wildly exaggerated.

    Mystere: “Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one”. Having thus come out with one of the classics of fallacious argument (the argument from dismissal) she goes straight on to talk about logical fallacy. Priceless! But then what precedes it is one long example of the fallacy of argument by rhetorical question, so maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.

    And b.t.w., the ancient Romans and Greeks did NOT have “homosexual families” (whatever they are) in relation to Abrahamic religious tradition. In fact, the model of one man, one woman and (lots of) children was the accepted norm. Which is pretty “Abrahamic”, actually.

  • Gerry

    Where exactly have I said Fr. L. Lied? What I said was “If you want to lie (…)?” That’s asking a question, and to claim that I stated he lied is as wildly exaggerated as him claiming Starbucks and other gay-friendly businesses didn’t see a backlash from religious conservatives because of their support of love and equal treatment to LGBT people.

  • Theresa

    I also think it is important to point out that being against gay marriage does not automatically equal bigotry. This is bad logic.

    Recent post the dissects this bad logic:

    Excerpt: It may happen to be true that a Christian is also a bigot and therefore he believes marriage is between a man and a woman because he is bigoted. But this is like a person who hates golfers and therefore thinks they should be barred from the World Series. All people who believe golfers should be barred from the World Series do not, therefore, believe this because they hate golfers. This is a pretty clear logical distinction but it is unfortunately lost on the majority of people who support gay marriage.

  • jaykay

    Gerry: basic grammar defines that what you said is not a question of any sort. It’s a conditional statement but it most certainly is not a question and neither would it be taken as such by any reasonable reader. Please don’t try to weasel out of it.

  • jaykay

    Sorry… “weasel” was too strong. Apologies.

  • Gerry

    Very well. tell me where exactly how does “basic grammar” say my sentence states he lied. Isn’t the definition of conditional statement supposed to require a “condition” to be satisfied before implying anything?

    Let’s start again, ok? This way I hope this way I won’t be “weaseling” out again.
    He wants to make a point, namely, that there was no comparable uproar when any pro-gay companies take similar or stronger positions in the other side; any “reasonable reader” can see that is a goal of the piece. But, as is easily verifiable, there have been similar backlashes in the other way, which the father wilfully or ignorantly neglects to mention; the direct or indirect objective ending up being the “manipulation of the truth” towards the audience (something that he condemns in no uncertain terms in his own last paragraph.)

    How did I do this time? Any more basic grammatical inaccuracies?

  • jaykay

    Gerry: Yes indeed, let’s start again. You used “if”. That opens a condition, not a question. Secondly, you didn’t use any question mark in your original post (and if you had it still wouldn’t have made any sense). You said: “if you want to lie …” If you used any such phrase in the chamber of any democratic legislature you would be asked by the Speaker to withdraw it. Or be suspended. Face it: you did not raise a question originally and the post-factum insertion of a question mark in your reply can’t change that. What you did was to make an unfounded allegation. I wouldn’t try it in any court.

  • John

    Equality perhaps?

  • John

    Well said Gerry. The only difference is that when the homophobes were boycotting Starbucks, liberals had better things to do than queue up for hours to buy a coffee.

  • Gerry

    “Gerry: Yes indeed, let’s start again. You used “if”. That opens a condition, not a question. Secondly, you didn’t use any question mark”
    Now, who’s trying to change the subject? I will put it very plainly for you: I admit it, my initial post was all the grammatically inaccurate you wish. Satisfied?
    Now, can you focus on the content of my allegations instead of the form?
    Seeing that you are not responding to anything else after the “Let’s start again…”, I assume you agree with that: The priest is hypocritically manipulating the truth to suit his agenda. Yet he didn’t lie.

  • Sandy

    Actually there is evidence that some in the gay rights community do want to make pedophilia legal. I recently read that some law makers in a part of Canada are currently debating doing just that. They want to make legal gay sex between an adolescents boy and a man. This is just wrong and there is nothing hateful about disagreeing about a moral issue. The intolerance of the left is what is becoming hateful.