Chick-fil-A: if you’re not sure, this is how fascism works – UPDATED AGAIN

Over at Facebook, I noticed a picture of Kermit and Miss Piggy marrying, with a caption about Chick-fil-A*. I can’t seem to find it, now — perhaps the person who posted it deleted it.

I confess, haven’t been following this story at all. But after the Muppets picture, I saw someone ranting about Chick-fil-A being denied business licenses because they were “against gay marriage.”

At that point, I posted to Facebook,

“Whether these Chick-fil-A people support gay marriage or not, are people no longer entitled to their own opinions? I mean, denying them business licenses? Really? Is this what we’ve come to:”Either fall in line or you will pay; we will destroy you…” for having a different opinion?

Whatever happened to “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

If this is true, if this bullying is true, then this is not my father’s liberalism, that’s for sure. It’s something very, very different.

Well, a lively conversation ensued in which it was pretty much agreed upon that if a business willfully inserts itself into a political issue, that’s “one thing” but if a business is forced to declare its political beliefs — and if that declaration can mean the difference between getting a license or not, that’s “something else.”

It’s fascism, actually.

But this Chick-fil-A story is something beyond a demand to declare oneself and face consequences — it’s even worse than that. Apparently the mainstream media has taken it upon itself (perhaps because the owners are Christian?) to define Chick-fil-A’s positions for it.

Get Religion’s Terry Mattingly tells the miserable tale of media malfeasance:

So, did you hear about that wild quote that the president of Chick-fil-A didn’t say the other day?

Here’s a piece of a CNN report that is typical of the mainstream press coverage of this latest cyber-skirmish in America’s battles over homosexuality, commerce and free speech (sort of).

(CNN) — The fact that Chick-fil-A is a company that espouses Christian values is no secret. The fact that its 1,600 fast-food chicken restaurants across the country are closed on Sundays has long been testament to that. But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on Monday have ignited a social media wildfire.

“Guilty as charged,”, Cathy said when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

Now, one would assume — after reading a reference to the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage” — that this interview . . . actually included direct quotes from Cathy in which he talks about, well, gay marriage.

In this case, one cannot assume that.

While the story contains tons of material defending traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, the controversial entrepreneur never talks about gay rights or gay marriage. Why? Because he wasn’t asked about those issues in the interview.

Read Mattingly’s whole piece,
wherein he addresses the whole “well, they may not have said it but it’s what they meant, so what’s the big deal?” angle.

The big deal is simply this: the press put aside context and decided to paint this company as some radically-religious-gay-hating-entity and then let the forces of anger, hate and spite have their way with it. The truth is, one can be a Christian and still be sympathetic to some parts of the so-called “gay agenda” without signing on in toto. One can disagree on the issue of gay marriage — based on scripture, or thousands of years of tradition, or on natural law — without actually hating anyone. But the right to principled opposition is being erased, quickly, and the press is doing all it can to help erase it. We are losing the right to say, “I don’t think the same way you do; my opinions are different.” That matters, a lot.

This is our mainstream press — the people charged with the public trust — and it has moved beyond advocacy and into “search and destroy” mode.

This is not about being “right” or “wrong” on an issue. This is about menacing and bullying people into conforming or paying the price. It’s about the bastardization of the word “tolerace” in our society, to the point where the word no longer means “live and let live” or “let people be who they are”; the word has become distorted in a very unhealthy way. Someone’s a bigot? Let him be a bigot; like it or not, a man is entitled to his damn bigotry. Someone’s a curmudgeon? Let him be a curmudgeon. Someone’s a misogynist (or, conversely, a male-hater?) let them be! People are entitled to be who they are — just as a church is entitled to be what it is — free of government compulsion to be what they are not. We cannot “make” people be more loving. We cannot “legislate” kindness. A bigot, or a hater (of any sort) will eventually find himself standing alone, will have to figure things out for himself. Or, not.

If people are no longer entitled to their own opinions, or to think what they think, then we are not free people, at all. Period. Full stop. That’s a fundamental as it gets.

Moreover, where does the “punishment” spiral stop? The press declares Chick-fil-A “homophobic” (a dishonest word) and then the local governments start penalizing them for it; Jim Henson’s outfit stomps off. What next? Will people against gay marriage start boycotting Muppet stuff? Pyres of Elmo in support of Chick-fil-A’s right to be itself?

Hey, anyone has a right to boycott or protest anything, but is it right — is it just — to effect a boycott at the behest of a press so overt, so obvious in its intent to identify-and-harass the boogeymen of their passionate loathings?

Shall honest people consent to such manipulation? Further, can justice-minded people be comfortable with a government interfering with a business on the basis of its opinions?

This reeks of fascism. And frankly, these are acts born out of insecurity, not security, in one’s own position. It is bringing a sledgehammer to a fight, because you cannot trust your own argument.

I came across Mattingly’s story right after reading this piece at The Catholic Thing

But distinctions do matter. We were once allowed to be what we held. Catholics were Catholics. Jews were Jews. It was all right. We now have an overarching “law” that tells us that we cannot be what we are. The university, once a place that respected distinctions and diversity of ways of life, is now an engine that allows nothing but its own definition of diversity. And diversity means that nothing can be diverse.

Quite right, and quite timely. Read the whole thing.

(*I don’t know when I have hated a business name more)

UPDATE I: Former CBS News writer Deacon Greg must be getting weary of writing “what were you thinking” to one MSM news group after another.

More from Volokh

And from Hot Air, (Twice)

UPDATE II: Okay, here is what I think: free enterprise “conservative” people who are tired of the hysteria surrounding this Chick-fil-A story should take pictures of themselves drinking a Starbucks or eating Ben and Jerrys (Indies should take a picture doing BOTH) and upload them on their sites or onto Facebook and Twitter. With the header…”Got Tolerance?

Instapundit links here. Thanks, Glenn!

UPDATE III: I’m giving Antoine Dodson the last word.

YouTube Preview Image

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • kayla

    Ck—-you’re awesome. Thanks for stating your views :)

  • kayla

    no… just evolved. :)

    [Into smugness? :-) -admin]

  • Zach

    Chick-fil-a has a documented history of supporting organizations that openly oppose the civil rights of Americans because they are “different.” This might surprise some of you, but not everyone in the United States is a Christian. As a secular nation based on premise equality, there is no justification for denying rights to citizens based on superstitious beliefs of some (even of they consist of a majority).

    ["This might surprise you," but that's not what this piece is about. Okay, this is getting boring. The question is this: should the press be fomenting controversy in an overtly disingenuous way, and should governments impede businesses whose opinions they do not like. Please stay on topic or there is no point to a comments section. -admin]

  • Gail Finke

    CK: You are making the sort of of baiting statements and arguments that make this kind of discussion so tendentious. Chick-fil-A has not made ANY donations that are “anti-gay.” Opposing redefining the universal definition of marriage is not “anti-gay” and it does not violate anyone’s rights. What are one’s rights when it comes to marriage? Simple. I do not have the right to marry anyone — I am already married. So I have no further rights in this matter. However, when I was single, I had the right to marry ANY eligible person I could find who would agree to marry me. That means any man above the age of majority who was not married and was not too closely related to me. It would not matter if we loved or even knew each. Gay people have that exact same right. The right to get married does not have anything to do with love or the benefits that a particular society decides to give to married people (all of which one can get by other contracts). What I do not have is the right to marry a woman who is otherwise eligible — and gay people have that same restriction. Gay and straight people can enter any other non-marital relationships they want to, and our current social habits are probably the most tolerant ever of the widest variety of these relationships than any society ever. But if one elects to be in one of these other relationships, one is not married.

  • YourNameHere

    What gets me is all this HATE towards the Church? Why all of a sudden you knew all along exactly where we stood. Chick-fil-A CEO a Christian?! Against Gay Marriage?!! HOW DARE HE!?!
    Yeah how dare he have the nerve to stand up to nutcases
    What if…What IF all the people in History who decided to stand against the tide never stood up?
    There would be no America Segregation would STILL exist Emancipation wouldn’t have happened either
    We wouldn’t have any of it if someone hadn’t stood up back then and said NO because That truly was wrong! They were crimes vs Humanity
    This whole Gay Marriage issue is not a crime vs Humanity
    It’s like saying Oh Well obese people can no longer have anything but fresh veggies because they’re fat
    Gimme a break you want Gay Marriage go to Canada or overseas
    If you want to have a document stating they’re your life partner Whatever I don’t care if you do that but don’t come knocking down the doors of the church DEMANDING you be married there when you know good and darn well it ain’t gonna happen
    Chick-fil-A deserves a commendation in this day and age for standing up to the biggotry running RAMPANT in this country and yeah you heard me right BIGGOTRY
    But then you twist my words and say YEAH see he supports Gay Marriage! No I do not and No I don’t hate Gays or Lesbians
    The whole country has gone flippin crazy and needs to take their meds again

  • kayla

    ha! no I just mean there are traditional and non traditional ways of doing things. That doesn’t mean one has to be right or wrong. Simply coexist. It’s not even about calling it a “marriage”. Putting religious views aside, having a legally recognized relationship with who you love, regardless of who or how you love, should not be too much to ask.

    [But for many people, even on the pro-gay marriage side, is IS about "calling it marriage" and for others -- who are looking at how the thing is playing out in other countries, where, for instance, in the UK churches are now being told they "must" perform same sex marriage -- this is a much larger issue. I am talking here about "government compulsion." Should the government have the right to shut down a business whose opinion it does not like? Should the government have the power to tell a church who it may call "minister" as the administration recently tried to do (and lost in the Supreme court 9-0) or to tell churches that they must deny their own consciences and basically "stop being who they are"? That's the question, Kayla. And I think you know the answer. -admin]

  • Erin

    Tolerance and diversity should not be the double standard that they have become. Very well written!

  • YourNameHere

    Also if the Government decides who gets a license for businesses and who doesn’t What next? What freedom would you like them to declare THEIR business next?
    Oh i know how about what we eat, where we work, and what things we can buy
    Oh wait there’s already been a Government like that, SEVERAL and they all collapsed
    You be free to be what you want to be I’ll be free to be who I am and we’ll agree to disagree unless you’d like some truth in your life then I’ll be more than happy to share.
    Til then
    Don’t Tread on Me

  • Rob

    I fear for our future as a nation. America was founded on the principle of Religious Freedom. We had suffered England’s oppression long enough to justify going to war and declaring independence. Now Chick-fil-A isn’t allowed to have Christian beliefs. The Boy Scouts are not allowed to practice it’s religious principles. The latest woman to attack BSA knew of their stand on gays long before she got involved. She became a scout leader under false pretenses, probably with the intent to cause problems for BSA. It’s not like they changed policies mid-stream. If you don’t like Chick-fil-A’s principles, you are free to eat elsewhere. If gays are so determined to be in scouting, they can organize their own group, but that’s not what they want. All they want is to destroy anyone who doesn’t conform to their beliefs.

  • kayla

    So are gay/lesbian people less than human? I mean… if it’s not a crime against humanity, what is it then???

    [Oh, come on. I was talking to you in good faith, and that's where you went? Discussion over. -admin]

  • Ck

    It’s not as if chic-fil-a has lost the right to operate in the US, or Illinois, or even all of Chicago. It’s one alderman in a predominantly gay district doing exactly what his constituents elected him to do, serve his community. For you to equate the actions of a Chicago alderman to fascism is fear mongering and playing into this bogus notion that somehow Christianity is under attack. Chic-fil-a chose to donate ungodly amounts of money to further promote the infringement of basic rights citizens in this country are entitled to. If a local alderman feels it adequate to keep a restaurant that would only help to promote this far right agenda from opening in his neighborhood, and that that is the will of his electorate, I commend him for it.

    [It's actually the Boston Mayor as well -- it could conceivably happen to them around the country. You're okay with that? Marriage is not a "right" even for heterosexuals, so they're not trying to "infringe a basic human right" but more importantly, they are ENTITLED to their opinion, and to advocate for that opinion through donations just as YOU are entitled to do the same, or George Soros or Nabisco is entitled to. You don't have to patronize them, but you don't shut them down. Are you saying that if Utah decided that because Nabisco panders to gay pride stuff, they should no longer sell in their state, you'd be fine with that? Seriously? Or would Utah then be fascists for not allowing Nabisco to sell there, b/c of their opinion? Suddenly it looks different, right? But you've shown, me, by your last sentence that you are perfectly okay with totalitarianist/fascist thinking. I am very sorry to read that. I've spent enough time in the combox today. -admin]

  • kayla

    all they want is to have the right to do everything everyone else can do!! maybe we should have just continued to let the “blacks” start their own schools instead of them trying to destroy ours! Maybe we should have made women form their own union instead of, heaven forbid, being included in the same level as MEN!!?

  • kayla

    that’s a serious question. I want to know how denying us HUMAN rights is not a HUMANity issue??? I really would just like to hear an explanation.

  • kayla

    and i wasn’t talking to you admin…. the humanity question was for “yournamehere”

  • Ck

    Gal: I’m not about to have this debate. All these groups and advocates that chick-fil-a donated to are obviously anti-gay. Pretending otherwise only illustrates the point that the two sides are obviously on different worlds. One believes it’s about basic human rights and the granting of such to all citizens of a truly free country. The other feels their rights are being threatened (rather ironically) by those seeking to grant the same rights to all citizens. But I digress-

  • al rotundo

    you just don’t get it. there’s no excuse for hate. none.

  • djheru

    The problem isn’t that the mayor is blocking licenses for Chic fil a because he doesn’t like their position on homosexuality or gay marriage. The problem is that the mayor has the ability to block licenses based on personal preference.

    I don’t care if it’s Chic Fil A (I hate typing that stupid name. Who lets an illiterate person name a company?) in Boston or the mosque in Tennessee, if you want to withhold a permit/license, you should have to prove that the normal operations of the establishment pose a real, quantifiable harm to the residents of the area. Otherwise, you are just opening up the process to abuse and cronyism.

  • Ck

    Again you’re fear mongering. I highly doubt this would ever become a national issue, a state issue, or even a city issue, at least to the point where it is implemented legislatively. He is merely representing a small neighborhood in northern Chicago. All this about fascism and Christianity being under attack is totally bogus and rhetoric that does far more harm than it ever did good, not to mention clouds ones ability to deal with issues reasonably without immediately jumping to these counterproductive war cries.

  • Dwight Davis

    In your kind response to my post, you said that fascism begins with people being marginalized. Are corporations people?

    Yes, it is completely absurd to block a business from opening. And honestly, I dare either the city of Chicago or Boston or any other city to block Chick-fil-A from opening based on this. I’m studying constitutional law right now and I know they don’t have any solid ground to stand on. It is equally absurd, in my opinion, to call them fascists for their response. Falling off the horse on the other side is just as bad.

    [But that's what fascists do. -admin]

  • Joe Fogey

    “in the UK churches are now being told they “must” perform same sex marriage — ”

    Not true. The legislation currently proposed would not allow same sex marriage in “places of worship” but many of the people consulted felt that religious organisations like the Quakers, who want to be able to conduct such marriages should be allowed to.

  • Joe Fogey

    Home Office consultation paper proposals:
    to allow same-sex couples to marry in a register office or other civil ceremony
    to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert it into a marriage
    to allow people to stay married and legally change their gender
    to maintain the legal ban on same-sex couples marrying in a religious service

  • Sarah B

    to CK – Also, with the district being so predominantly gay, Chick-fil-a would probably not be able to make enough revenue in such a place to remain open. If not enough people frequent the restaurant, that site would close. Thus, the people would have had their say, the restaurant would leave that area, instead of the government deciding that the company CEO is not entitled to his opinion.

  • Dwight Davis

    Your response, “But that’s what fascists do” makes no sense. Why are you so pointedly rude to your commenters? It’s a little sad.

    What exactly do fascists do? Fall off the horse on the other side of fascism? Because that’s what I was accusing you of. If fascism is the right side of the horse (of which no one has fallen off of yet in this situation) then you are falling off of the left. And before someone says that you are obviously not a leftist, I’m not speaking in terms of political leanings.

    And you never answered my question. Are corporations people? In your first response you said fascism marginalizes people. But so far no one has been marginalized. There have been some threats to block a business from opening, nothing more than that. No one has said that the person is not welcome in their city. So, are corporations people? And please, try not to be sarcastic in your response. I’ve been civil enough to actually think through my responses, I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

    [I wasn't being sarcastic at all, and I am "pointedly rude" to my commenters? Far from it; I've been quite civil to an entire barrage of commenters. But you'll excuse me I do actually have a job and right now I have to read 22 other blogs and design a landing page before a deadline, so my combox time is about up. And everyone else's will be soon, as comments will automatically shut down in an about hour. -admin]

  • Ck

    Additionally, zoning is hardly a right and granted or denied on a variety of factors (blocking ones ocean view for example). And it seems in Chicago the zoning decisions are defaulted to a democratically elected alderman. A far cry from fascism.

  • geeky

    Getting a business license is not a “right” in this country the last time I checked. Local governments have a vested interest in licensing the businesses they think are good for the community, and weeding out those they deem not desirable. Now that Chick Fil A has publicly announced its anti-gay position, it should be no surprise that diverse cities like New York, Chicago and Boston will publicly state that CFA is not welcome. An owner of a large chain should know that you can’t stake out a position on an issue like this and not get this reaction.
    The problem is not the fact that CFA is a Christian company. Everyone has known that for years and have not boycotted or otherwise cut ties over it. The problem is that it has now made public statements about the company’s stance on gay marriage. Had they not stated it publicly, none of this backlash would be happening. They have supported anti-equality initiatives with their donations for years, but no one really knew about it. Now everyone knows, and now everyone is having to choose sides. Not a smart decision by Mr. Cathy. I have a feeling there will be more backlash to come. And I would be shocked if Jim Henson Co. doesn’t have grounds for a lawsuit over the defective toy claim.

  • Ck

    Sarah, the point is that the store actively participates in the form of millions of dollars donated to anti-gay causes that are dialectically opposed to the will of the people which reside in this particular neighborhood, and in their, and a growing majority of American’s views, infringe upon human rights. The store would still make money, further contributing to a cause they believe to be morally, constitutionally, and simply logically wrong.

  • Rich Kirkpatrick


    I recently reflected on this. I think we are being duped into polarization–by both the Right and Left. The solution each side is taking is for a Federal creed that trumps the other side. So, we rush to appoint our party in place and the media and political machinery married to it thrives on it. No reasoned discussion can occur in this climate!

  • Dwight Davis

    I work for a newspaper 40 hours a week and am a full time student working a dual degree in law and divinity and do an internship and am married so I understand busy. I still found time to thoughtfully respond to you. You didn’t answer a single one of my questions, you’re the one who wasted both your time and my time by ignoring the questions I’ve asked. Poor form.

    [Too bad you weren't here four hours ago when I had time to respond better, as evidenced throughout the thread. Right now, I do not. You're not the only one here. -admin]

  • Ck

    Well said geeky. Had he simply just made some comments, even on the record, perhaps those opposing the aldermans stance would have some traction. But he chose to actively insert himself and his company into the political arena by his large contributions to anti-gay lobbies. And to tie in with my response to Sarah, this is exactly why it’s not simply enough to argue that the store could simply suffer the consequences of a marginalized boycott.

  • Mat-Mat

    Very well written and a very interesting topic. So what rights should the govt have in denying or approving business licenses? If you were to put the language or idea behind the standard what would it be? I also think this situation applies…


  • Paul

    It’s not facism, that’s a really irresponsible comment to make. Everything is “socialist” or “communist” or “facist” or “nazi” now. The media (including blogs) should know better. That’s in answer to your first question… Yes, the media is mishandling this, your article is proof. Secondly, what about his comments on divorce? “We are all married to our first wives.” Last time I checked, marital status (and gender!) are not grounds for deciding employment. Aside from the point that’s been made (getting a zoning permit is not a right), he basically admitted to hiring bias. That’s blatantly illegal, and they should be investigated thoroughly. I’m waiting for the class-action on behalf of all divorcees and women who applied and were not hired there.

    In short, don’t use hyperbolic labels, and think about this objectively. My neighborhood would certainly not allow a coffee shop to start up that “disagreed with interracial marriage” even if they promised to be “respectful to African-Americans/Blacks.” Because the two statements are incongruous with each other.

    PS – I married my husband (in Iowa) on New Years Eve of 2011. Did anyone else’s marriage suddenly weaken that day? Just curious, been asking, but no one seems to have noticed (except us and our families).

  • James Young

    Just one word: Bravo!

  • Kris

    “Marriage is not a “right” even for heterosexuals, so they’re not trying to “infringe a basic human right” but more importantly, they are ENTITLED to their opinion, and to advocate for that opinion through donations just as YOU are entitled to do the same, or George Soros or Nabisco is entitled to.” -admin

    Obtaining a business license is not a “right” either. The fact of the matter is that we, as a people, have the right to oppose anything we want. These are elected officials who are actually representing their communities. I’m curious if you live in a location where this is happening?

    As far as the issue of gay rights/marriage is concerned. The opposition can hide behind religion or whatever they want; theirs’ is a position that is based on hate, and is one step removed from the westboro baptist church or other hate groups. I’m not accusing you of the same, but it smells pretty bad around here.

  • Ted Burnett

    I don’t recall Jesus excluding anyone. Politics, religions, fraternities, social organizations, clubs are built on keeping certain groups out.

    The thought police works both ways. The religious don’t want to hear many ideas that challenge their fixed beliefs. One Savior and many denominations — all with their own competing beliefs. All have their own thought police.

  • geeky

    “Yes, it is completely absurd to block a business from opening. And honestly, I dare either the city of Chicago or Boston or any other city to block Chick-fil-A from opening based on this.” So let’s say an adult book store wants a license to operate in your neighborhood. Is it ok with you if your local government now has to grant a license to any legal, law-abiding business that applies?

  • doc

    It is interesting that the comments in a post about the bullies who make up the gay lobby and their thug politicians and media allies are forcing the hostess to close comments. Pretty much proves the point, eh? BTW, refusing to change the definition of marriage is not anti-gay, does not imply that those who defend traditional marriage “hate” gays, and in no way oppresses the gay community. Instead, words’ meaning are being changed before our eyes. What should be approve is now tolerate. So if one doesn’t openly approve of gays they are accused of hatred and oppresssion. How Orwellian.

    [My comments close automatically after 24 hours. No one is forcing nuthin' :-) -admin]

  • David Davies

    to quote Monty Python: “Too Silly, Too Silly!!”

    There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’. It is a null category, like yogurt and orange soda martinis. A thing has to have the correct ingredients, and two men or two women together do not fulfill the requirements. A thing exists before we develop the words we use to describe that thing, and if ‘marriage’ is now going to be subverted into meaning many things we shall have to coin a new word to describe what ‘marriage’ used to mean. ‘Evolved’ people, you may capture the word ‘marriage’ but the reality is forever outside your reach.

  • tina

    Why is it that when we as christians object to something on tv, or sold in stores, that we are told, “if you don’t like it, watch something else” or “if you don’t like what we sell, shop elsewhere”, but if a christian company takes a stand on their beliefs and we say the same thing to the liberals about “shopping elsewhere”, “you can always turn the channel” or in this case “you can always choose to eat somewhere else”, we are denying them their civil rights? Please example that to me? For a long time now it been one-sided! We’ve backed down because we didn’t want to hurt someone! Didn’t want to offend them! But now that we take a stand against something that we firmly believe in, and see as a terrible sin against our beliefs, we are wrong. This belief is just as important to us as their belief is to them. If tolerance is to work, it must work by both sides, and that means just exactly that! If you don’t like the stand or belief that is being taken, “eat somewhere else”, “shop somewhere else” or “turn the channel!” That’s exactly what we’ve had to do!! It works both ways!!

  • David H

    This article is quite well put together, thank you Elizabeth Scalia for writhing it.

    Rich, you wrote, “I think we are being duped into polarization–by both the Right and Left. The solution each side is taking is for a Federal creed that trumps the other side. So, we rush to appoint our party in place and the media and political machinery married to it thrives on it. No reasoned discussion can occur in this climate!”

    I tend to agree. In fact, the boycotting back and forth can get quite monotonous.

    I do not agree with the ‘gay’ agenda but neither do I agree with any ‘hate’ mongering at all. Jesus himself ate and drank with sinners and in so doing, I believe, drew many to himself.
    We must actually have the love of Christ toward all mankind!
    The group ‘Casting Crowns’ has a song entitled ‘Jesus Friend of Sinners’, which was excellently written, that addresses how we should respond to others.
    I doubt if Christ is pleased with any of the bashing going on.

    The end may be sooner than we think.

  • tina

    Sorry, I mean please “explain” that to me in the above paragraph!

  • Dave Riner
  • John Todd

    You seem to omit the language that actually offended most people:

    “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said. “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.”

  • AG

    The government of the United States of America SHOULD NOT have the right to shut down a business because the CEO of that business has opinions it does not like. It is a violation of rights guaranteed in our Constitution. Moreover, Chik Fil-A sells chicken, for goodness sake! Not marriage licenses. Who cares what the President and CEO think? If we delve into the psyche of any one of us, there will be thoughts, opinions, and even actions that will undoubtably offend “someone” out there. One thing I love about this country is that here, unlike many other places in the world, we have the right to think and say (and usually even do) whatever we want. And it is AWESOME. Refusing to grant a business license to someone based on opinions (especially since they have nothing to do with the business he wants to run) is fascist and, frankly, dangerous. Who will be next?

  • Johnny

    The intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance.

    Bigotry is not a valid point of view or opinion.

    Civil marriage is not a religious ceremony, it’s a legal contract that does not fall into the realm of spirituality of any kind.

    Freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just conservative Christians. Just like Chick-fell-ate has the right to stand for whatever causes it wants, so does every individual and municipality.

    You want to stand against equal marriage rights, then you have to be like a bear eating honey out of a beehive. It’s going to hurt.

  • Beth

    I don’t recall Jesus excluding anyone.

    Nor do I (although I doubt you’d have seen Jesus giving a gay marriage ceremony His blessing).

    Similarly, Chik-Fil-A doesn’t “exclude” anyone, either. Anyone can work there, eat there, whatever. They do not discriminate. This is about the president of the company’s personal beliefs about marriage and about persecution for thought crimes. I have yet to see evidence that Mr. Cathy has ever discriminated against a person because of his or her sexual preferences (or gender, or race, or religion, or whatever), or even demonstrated personal antipathy toward groups of people because of their identity politics.
    It’s funny that some people like to talk about how Jesus accepted social pariahs, but assume that His followers are opposed to doing the same. Love does not mean “license,” though. Jesus loved sinners, but He did not give approval for or license to sin – and I’m sorry, but homosexual acts are considered “sin.” Christians can – and indeed, do – love gay people just as much as straight and still not believe that marriage is a sacrament for anything but one man, one woman, till death do they part. That belief doesn’t have anything to do with “hate” or anything else. It is gay activists who are projecting their own beliefs on to Christians. They believe that support for “traditional marriage” (indeed, even defining it!) means homophobia, hate, etc. That is how gay activists define “traditional marriage,” not Christians. But in this context, when discussing gay vs. “traditional” marriage, so what if Mr. Cathy disagrees? Again, he’s not practicing discrimination, he just has his beliefs to which – last I checked – he is entitled, just as anyone else is.

    So, since we’re going to persecute people and businesses for thought crimes, when do the yellow crosses get slapped up on businesses’ doors to denote them as enemies of the state? When do the book burnings begin?

    And when will gay marriage activists learn the concept of overreach? If you want to get people who are somewhat agnostic about the issue to your side, why do you consistently engage in the most repellent activism and rhetoric? Where I was once agnostic on the issue, the more I have to argue these points when the activist mafia goes off the deep end (again!), the more convinced I am myself that “gay marriage” is an imaginary construct with no more validity than “dog algebra.”

    If activists want to get ahead in this issue, you really need to first learn what the heck opponents of gay marriage actually believe. Only then will you address the arguments sensibly and convincingly – if you can.

  • Beth

    Meh. Fix italics tags please? ^^^^

  • Beth

    Jesus himself ate and drank with sinners and in so doing, I believe, drew many to himself.

    We are all sinners, and this is true – we are all welcome in God’s love. Christ showed us how to love one another because we are all sinners, and at the same time all God’s children.
    But He did not give license to sin, nor did he say sin should be codified into law. Love is not license.
    You love your child. Just because you love your child unconditionally, it doesn’t mean you will approve of or allow everything he or she wants to do.

  • Roberto Gelleni

    I find it “funny” how Dan Cathy seems not to be able to enjoy the same freedom of speech and opinions that his “opponents” say they value so much.
    I also find the statement of Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino a contraddiction in and of itself when he says:
    ” Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion” ..
    SO, mayor, you say you pride yourself to be an “all inclusive city..” as long as it does not *include* people you do not like. I think there is a name for that. And I think I am free to vote and express myself with my wallet. On August the 1st, I know where *I* will be eating.
    Oh, wait, I am not done.. I simply do not see Dan’s statement discriminatory. It’s a *private* business, and he said he and his company are pro traditional marriages. Never spoke a word about gay. I read his biography, and admire him and his company for having always be firmly standing for what they believe. A true American success story.
    And, allow me to say that my late uncle was a journalist. You know, the kind with a typewrites, the old ones. I always thought he reminded me of Hemingway, with his cigar, and a bottle close by. He had issues, as well as the next guy. But her never, never, twisted words, cut statements just to make people’s opinion “match” a “party line” .. Not even for the sake of his own paper. Make your own conclusions.

  • C Mc D

    I am not gay, but married (mostly happily) with 3 kids and HUGELY supportive of the right of gays (or anyone) to marry whomever they like, and engage in whatever consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

    That stated, If one views ‘Gay Rights’ on the same level of Civil Rights the denial of a permit might make sense: it logical stands that one wouldn’t allow Chick-Fil-A to not serve Blacks (or any other racial/ethnic group). However Chick-Fil-A will serve anyone — so denying them a business license merely for their stated views, no matter how odious (and Chick-Fil-As views are odious) — seems to be exactly the sort of unilateral tyranny what the earliest American inhabitants of Boston so railed against. I’d rather see Chick-Fil-A incur the cost of setting up a restaurant and then having people bankrupt the company by not going. But it should NOT be done by government fiat.

  • Johnny

    Civil marriage is not a sinful act.

    Most sinful acts are completely legal. It’s perfectly legal to be slothful, greedy, vain, adulterous, dishonor parents, commit fornication, be envious. And those are among the deadly sins and commandments. So this business of codifying sin into law is hogwash. You’ve a long list of things to make illegal before you can say that two people who might or might not be having sinful sex can’t have a civil contract.

    Just because two people get a civil marriage does not even automatically mean they are having sex. It’s an assumption.