world

U.S. chicken chain sales soar amid gay marriage flap

130 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

130 Comments
Login to comment

gay rights activists and their supporters who, citing tax records, say it has given millions of dollars to Christian groups that vigorously campaign against marriage equality.

Good for them they have rights too, if they dont like gay marriage they are entitled to support the christian group who oppose gay marriage.

Gays need to realise people are allowed to not like them and their way of life, it cant be forced onto people.

15 ( +27 / -12 )

'Inviting God's judgement'. I've lived in and always enjoyed my stay in the US but I cannot understand why in the 21st century many if its people are still in thrall to Christianity and the bigots who march under that banner. Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, proponents of ID, the 'Left Behind' series etc. were/are an insult to that great nation.

2 ( +14 / -12 )

It is a free speech thingy, he has the right to support or not support and guess to tomorrow I will have chicken. Not sure I agree with him but support his right to say it.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

I can't think of anything dumber than politicizing one's business. Even if the Chick-fil-A executives have a political position, this does not hold true for its employees and suppliers. What's to be gained by polarizing society like this? Are businesses bent on separating gays and straight people the same way they now do with smokers and non-smokers?

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Wow, this is stupid. Last thing I want to be thinking about when I'm eating fast food chicken is the political position of the people who made it. I'm going to try really hard to ignore this now.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Good for them they have rights too, if they dont like gay marriage they are entitled to support the christian group who oppose gay marriage.

Gays need to realise people are allowed to not like them and their way of life, it cant be forced onto people.

I agree. Whether you are gay or straight, support gay rights issues or you support traditional family values is everyones personal opinions. People aren't obliged to buy, support or patron the restaurant. It's a personal choice, but to outright call for a boycott is just as bad. Who are these people to ask people to take a stand or to influence others not to buy at a restaurant chain, where is the tolerance in that?

People can believe whatever they want to believe and some people will never accept same sex couples or accept homosexuality, you can't blame it solely on Christianity or any other religion. The owners and staff at the individual chains of Chick-fil-A shouldn't have to be punished because the CEO has a personal point of view.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

Sales at Chik Fil A have soared and are gonna continue to soar because middle class Americans are sick and tired of threats and coercion. Mayors and politicians (Democrats, naturally) in cities like Chicago, SF and Boston threatened this company. If you do not toe the new line on gay marriage Obama and his imitators want you punished. Stop going after people for their religious beliefs.

Shame on whoever it was compiled this article for not including that information.

1 ( +14 / -13 )

The Chik-Fil-A resturants do not have a history of discriminating against anyone. It seems the pro-boycott supporters object to the personal viewpoint of the COO. They're saying that the COO gives money to hate groups. If that were true, then they should be boycotting the COO and not the resturants which have nothing to do with gays, or hate groups, or politics. They're just people doing their jobs.

It's amazing that so many people turned out for "appriciation" day. It wasn't even a company sponsored program. No advertising campaign and there were no discounts for buying food. Just people who liked chicken sandwiches and objected to misleading and phoney boycotts.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

why are we all being forced to accept all this gayness now? If you are gay and you want to eat some chicken, then Chick Fil A would be glad to have you. But if you have to make a spectacle of your gayness in their restaurant they dont want you there. I dont see what is wrong with them telling people that.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

if you have to make a spectacle of your gayness in their restaurant they dont want you there.

Where did you read that? It certainly doesn't say that here. You do realise they have 1600 restaurants, all with different managers? So "their restaurant" is meaningless.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Given the huge number of one-issue voters in the US, it may very well be that come November, the next president of the US will decided by the two candidates' diametrically opposing views on gay marriage. That does not bode well for the country at all.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It's amazing that so many people turned out for "appriciation" day. It wasn't even a company sponsored program. No advertising campaign and there were no discounts for buying food. Just people who liked chicken sandwiches and objected to misleading and phoney boycotts.

And the nasty bigots. Don't forget them.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Supporters of marriage equality—legal in six states and the U.S. capital Washington, but facing a potential Supreme Court challenge later this year—plan to conduct “kiss-in” protests outside Chick-fil-A locations on Friday.

On this counter Kiss-in thing, here's what the company said about it ( and I have to say absolutely without a doubt pure genius from the friendly folks at Chick-fil-A.)

"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," Robinson said in a statement. "We understand from news reports that Friday may present yet another opportunity for us to serve with genuine hospitality, superior service and great food."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/chick-fil-record-setting-sales-appreciation-day/story?id=16912978#.UBrQObRYu-0

8 ( +8 / -0 )

@virtuoso

Given the huge number of one-issue voters in the US, it may very well be that come November, the next president of the US will decided by the two candidates' diametrically opposing views on gay marriage.

Utterly ridiculous.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There is nothing to prevent gay people from going to Chick Fil A and having some chicken. It is not the people who are not welcome it is the activities that they seem to want to do in public.

This is all about behavior, gays seem to want to be able to hold hands and all that while IN the restaurant, otherwise why the "kiss in"? That is the spectacle of it, people MUST see them kiss each other so they can try to prove that there is nothing wrong with it. People have already said they dont want to see it , but they want to do it anyway to prove a point. Everything has to be "in your face" to make people accept something they have chosen not to accept.

It is not about BEing gay, it is about DOing gay, in public around a bunch of religious people and kids who dont want to see it and shouldnt be forced to see it. Be gay and enjoy it, but keep the gayness at home and go have some good chicken.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Lots of apologists for religious beliefs. Just wondering if the same principles would apply to discrimination against Jews or anti-Semitic remarks. Couldn't anti-Semites claim ( some actually do ) that their negative feelings towards Jews are grounded in a Christian faith they are perfectly entitled to? Only gays? How about women?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a ridiculous name for a restaurant. And some fairly ridiculous opinions. Keep them to yourself and stick to serving your cheap and cheerful bits of chicken.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

As Voltaire said, “Monsieur l'abbe, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean yours is any better, nor that either of the two should be censored. I'm sure that if you asked the CEO if he would support making marriage strictly a religious thing and making civil unions the formal government definitions for all things currently considered marriage, he would have no issue with it.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"On this counter Kiss-in thing, here's what the company said about it ( and I have to say absolutely without a doubt pure genius from the friendly folks at Chick-fil-A.)"

Yeah, this is the point where gay activists lose all my support, this kind of activism only serves to be detrimental to their cause anyway.

Even in PC London similar action pretty much fell flat on their faces, this activism should be called what it is - anti-social behaviour:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13096519 >

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I think it is wrong for a company to polarize itself one way or another, whether it be on gay rights, religion, or politics. A company is more than the CEO, COO, or any executive. A company is the people and ultimately the customers.

If you want to have Christian or Muslim values, fine...keep them to yourself and do not push them on others. Just as I do not want people knocking on my door to give me religion, I do not want people putting religion in my chicken!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

This is not the ONLY chicken joint in the USA, plenty of other restaurants, if you want to go, go, if you do not like their chicken nor their political/religious views, take your $$$ somewhere else, right??

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's because Mitt Romney is using the chain as a rallying point, so you have these rifle-hugging homo-hatin' God-fearin' conservatives acting like them eating a 1000 calorie burger is an act of PATRIOTISM.

yep, douchebaggery and hatred tastes so awesome fried, doesn't it?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It's always been a mystery to me why self-avowed christian, normal, straight people spend so much time and energy and money thinking, talking and fretting about what gay people do to each other. I really don't care.

And now all these god-bothering bigots are going to get fat showing their support for this fried chicken outfit. Live and let live. It's healthier.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Gay marriage is not a civil right in the USA, and until the Supreme Court rules that it is, there is no bias case to be made against those who, in good conscience, oppose it.

What is truly disturbing are the threats. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee recently tweeted: "Closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."

You strongly recommend, Mr. Mayor? Why? Might something happen to a Chick-fil-A business that opens in your town? Are you sanctioning threats?

That's the crux of this matter, Lee's belief that he has a right to punish those with whom he disagrees. Hey, Mr. Mayor, the vast majority of black preachers publicly oppose gay marriage. Are you going to tell them not to set up shop in your town?

Bet he won't.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Great news. There's too much gay-activist bullying going on.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Alan, they aren't the ones talking about it all the time. Chik-fil-A made one statement amidst all the daily push for gay marriage and bashing against anyone who wants to keep the marriage laws the way they are and all hell broke loose. What's funny is that the gay-activists went on the attack pushing for boycotts and it backfired.

People need to stand up to bullies.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Gay marriage is not a civil right in the USA

But I thought life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Chik fil a made one statement...

Why does anyone need to express an opinion even once about how other people live their lives? It's none of their business.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

People need to stand up to bullies.

Ohhh, I LOVE it when straight Christians believe that they are victims of persecution. Yes, those mean gay people (who are actually and incessantly bullied, demeaned, harassed, beaten up, raped and murdered because of their sexual orientation) are sooooo mean to straight people. And how dare they be angry that an organization is homophobic! let's hold a candlelight vigil and pray for the safety of straight people all around!

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

The smugness of so many posters here is appalling (but then again, that's what keeps us coming back). To all those who think this is some kind of free speech issue, I encourage you to think about it just a little more.

No one is protesting the CEO's right to say anything; the LBGT community is opposing his company's donation of money to groups that are actively trying to deny those people the same rights that everyone else enjoys. The aim of these groups is to bring about legislation that will codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, if not outright criminals (as is the case in many countries in the world to this day). It makes perfect sense that the LGBT community would oppose this. If it helps you, exchange "gay and lesbian" with "black," or "blonde-haired," or "Jewish," or whatever group you happen to slot into. So, a major corporation that's still glad to take your money then turns around and gives said money to a group that aims to eventually label you a criminal. How have your feelings changed?

If the LGBT community truly had their way, they'd be free to live their lives, including the choice to eat at Chick-fil-a or not, as they see fit, which is hardly "forcing their views" on anyone else. If the CEO of Chick-fil-a and the groups he gives money to truly had their way, the LGBT community would be second-class citizens with fewer rights than others, at best, which very clearly is forcing their views upon others.

And yet, thousands of people go out of their way to support a company that itself goes out of its way to force people to live their lives the way they see fit, and furthermore, those supporters claim to be the poor victims of bullying. Absurd.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I'd pretty much be repeating what I've said on another site in regards to this. But the issue here is that the activists are trying to force a person to think the way they want them to think. Its me demanding a white supremacist that I should be allowed to join his organization, or a democrat telling a republican to not be conservative, or an christian telling an athiest that they should believe. Its an attempt to force a person to have the same opinion as those that support their own personal agenda's. As long as Chick-fil-A does not stop people from walking in their doors because they're gay (which they haven't) then everyone is entitled to their own OPINION and ideals.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

But the issue here is that the activists are trying to force a person to think the way they want them to think.

No, they're not. Everyone has the freedom of opinion and speech, that's not what's the issue here. But if you DO say things, you're not protected from the criticism of others, who also have the right to call you out on your douchebaggery. If I criticize someone who thinks I'm a second-class citizen and should burn in hell, guess what, they're not a victim. Guess what, I DON'T want to support a company with hateful management. I'm not going to give my money to people like that, that's called responsible consumerism. I wouldn't give my money to a racist company, a sexist company, a homophobic company, or otherwise unethical practices, if I was aware of such a thing and had access to alternatives.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Free speech aside, the chicken Christians are bigots. People wishing to forbid the legalization of gay marriage are just like those that put laws forbidding interracial marriage on the books in the United States. (When the Supreme Court struck down these laws in 1967 fourteen states had them on the books.)

Homophobia is no different from racism. Gays, lesbians and transsexuals ought to be left in peace to live as they wish. Legalization of gay marriage will hurt no one. Absolutely no one. In fact, by bringing stability to a long discriminated against minority it will more stability to American society.

The people who run Chick-fil-A and eat Chick-fil-A are homophobic creeps. A pox on them.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The right to discriminate - a precious thing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Kabukilover; You are wrong. First, interracial and same sex marriage are substantially different. The reason is that there are no differences between races- a black man and a white man are objectively the same. Yet there are crucial differences between the genders. Take the Olympics, for example. Events are segregated by gender and nobody bats an eye. Yet if they were separated by race there would (rightly) be an uproar.

I agree people should be left in peace. This case highlights the very real danger in politicians trying to become 'thought police', and basing thir decisions on irrelevant information. What would you think if a very socially conservative community decided to deny Starbucks a business license, solely on the basis of Starbucks' progressive and pro-gay policies? Ditto if a devout Muslim wanted to open a restaurant. Would you deny him the right to do so, not because of his actions as an employer, but because of his personal beliefs?

I love both the boycott and the support of ChickFilA. Both are true grassroots movements that show people are interested. That's the way it should be. I think a lot of (Democratic) politicians saw this as a way to score points.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@vast 'There are crucial differences between the genders'. Erm, I think we know that. I'm still not sure what that has to do with the choices of consenting adults which are nothing to do with you or I.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My point was that discrimination on race had no basis other than bigotry. However, there are legitimate and real differences between men and women that make discrimination based on gender a daily fact of life. From haircuts to washrooms to Olympic events.

And for the poster who said that people should "keep their religious values to themselves"- would you say the same about people's sexuality? "Just keep your gayness to yourself".... It would be ridiculous.

Like I said, this was an attempted pander by certain "progressive" politicians in the US that has backfired on them. They spoke without thinking of the consequences of what they were saying, and now are having to retract and clarify what they meant. I found it a shocking display of fascism that they thought it was perfectly OK to ban businesses based on the political/religious beliefs of the owner.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Vast It seems that you are prepared to accept discrimination against gays if it falls into the category of religious belief. Can other forms of discrimination against others such as Jews be accepted if they too fall into this category?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funk: Gays need to realise people are allowed to not like them and their way of life, it cant be forced onto people.

Kinda feels like the guy from Chick-Fil-A is forcing the issue, if you ask me.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Jim; Actually, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let people sign/make whatever arrangements they want. Man/man, woman/woman, man/woman/man, I don't really care. Let religious organizations have whatever marriaged they want. Similarly, let businesses run however they want.

There is no evidence that this chain has ever discriminated against gay people. Their list of charitable donations being used as 'evidence' is absurd. It would be the same as a right wing group using evidence that a business donated to Planned Parenthood as a way to call that business a cabal of baby murderers.

But the larger issue is the politics of it. Do YOU think it is right for politicians to deny businesses the right to open if they don't adhere to the 'right' political beliefs?This is the part that really disturbed me. The casual way that someone like Mayor Emmanuel of Chicago could get all bent out of shape over this issue. How quickly he forgot that he worked for a man who was publicly opposed to same sex marriage (Pres. Obama) for years and didn't care. Just leave people alone, they'll sort themselves out.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

So would you rather people die of heart attacks?

In your case I would say melodrama is the potential killer.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@vast I'm totally with you on your views on marriage - the state or church has no business there. I'm also with you on Obama's calculated conversion to gay marriage - cynical and cowardly. My point is that when we start excusing discrimination in the name of religious belief, we open the doors for every bigot to claim his or her insanitary views deserve protection. A quote such as 'God's punishment' isn't too far removed from the filth of Fred Phelps.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It's because Mitt Romney is using the chain as a rallying point, so you have these rifle-hugging homo-hatin' God-fearin' conservatives acting like them eating a 1000 calorie burger is an act of PATRIOTISM.

yep, douchebaggery and hatred tastes so awesome fried, doesn't it?

You have NO idea of what you are talking about. You are missing the point!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Kinda feels like the guy from Chick-Fil-A is forcing the issue, if you ask me.

@Superlib

Not forcing, the man was expressing his own personal belief and there is nothing wrong with it, nor is he forcing anyone to share in his personal feelings.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@ bass

I don't believe in it and find it revolting (the Gay lifestyle)

Could you explain to everyone what, exactly "the Gay lifestyle" is? It's just that I'm straight, but it would never occur to me to talk about "the Straight lifestyle", as I think it's a meaningless phrase.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Luca

Sure, It is a lifestyle that is different from the mainstream or the majority of the society. If that doesn't suit you, how about "being Gay or just Gay" it is totally irrelevant which euphemism I use, bottom line is, we are talking about a minority segment of the population that live a life that is different from the majority of people in the world.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If I don't believe in it and find it revolting (the Gay lifestyle), but I want their rights protected as everyone else and if they wish to have civil unions, does that make me a homophobe?

It does put you at odds with Chick-fil-a's CEO--you know, the guy pouring money into organizations that don't want homosexuals to have the rights you'd theoretically like to see protected. But to answer your question: it makes you someone who's comfortable with some people having some rights, and others not so much.

nor is he forcing anyone to share in his personal feelings.

That's exactly what he's spending his company's profits in an attempt to do. But feel free to continue to pretend that the boycott is about what he says about the issue, and not what he actually does (and admits to doing) about the issue.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If that is what he wants, he is entitled to do that, who are you (meaning anyone that thinks that this is a civil rights issue) this is a FREE MARKET, the mayors of Chicago, Boston, California are way out of line denying or wanting to deny a business license because of a CEO opinion, if you don't agree, don't go, I support that 100%, but why on earth would these mayors want to stand and try to block a business that generates profits and creates jobs, franchises of individuals that have nothing to do with the CEO's decision, but now they too, should suffer. That is essentially Blackmail! That kind of thinking like these idiots and PETA, Sea Shepherd and other groups that believe a certain way and force people to believe as they do. If you have a problem with what the CEO said, take it up with him directly! Send a letter, leave a message, create a Facebook page, but get out of my way, don't get in my face! I would say that to anyone that came up to me. Now, I wish there was a Chick-fil-A right now, if you never had one of their sandwiches, you need to try them, that is some tasty chicken and would put KFC to shame.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I'm not even really talking about the mayors. The story of the various mayors pretending to have the authority to somehow stop Chick-fil-a expansion in their respective cities is a separate issue, and yes, they're flat-out wrong. And yes, the CEO is free to donate the money and even tell everyone that's what he's doing. And the people who find that to be a hateful act are free to call it that, refuse to patronize the business, and encourage others to do the same.

Even if the mayors could somehow prevent Chick-fil-a's expansion, the idea that innocents will suffer because of the loss of a potential job is disingenuous at best. There are plenty of places that wouldn't mind at all, and there are approximately zero places where they'd love to start building a Chick-fil-a but can't because of the mean old mayor not letting them (despite what these mayors would have you believe). However, the idea that Mr. Cathy would love to see some people be treated as less than equal can in fact be construed as harming innocents.

that kind of thinking like these idiots and PETA, Sea Shepherd and other groups that believe a certain way and force people to believe as they do.

You're right--forcing people to believe as they do. Which is what Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-a are spending money to attempt to do.

If you have a problem with what the CEO said, take it up with him directly! Send a letter, leave a message, create a Facebook page, but get out of my way, don't get in my face!

Once again, it's not that people have a problem with what he said or that he said it; their beef is with what he does. If anything, the fact that he said he's doing it helps the LGBT crowd, because now they know for sure. He could have quietly donated forever, but chose to embrace it, as is his right--and those opposed have the right to say what they think about it, too, and act accordingly. And yes, people can do all those things, but that doesn't mean you are somehow being forced to believe it because of a Facebook page.

that is some tasty chicken

I've always been indifferent to their particular blend of chicken. It's just a filet with two pickles on it. I hate KFC because ordering exactly what you want is like doing an algebra equation, but taste-wise, if you're going to eat some fast food chicken, you may as well enjoy it at its greasy height.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Jizimo, you seem to have forgotten to mention that many of the people that are against same sex marriage are not always doing so based on religious beliefs. Some churches and christian groups actually support same sex marriage as well. Keep on thinking about it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Chik-Fil-A resurants haven't discriminated against anyone. They'll sell chicken sandwiches to anyone who wants one.

The CFA resturants aren't preventing anyone from getting married. They sell chicken sandwiches.

The people behind the boycott are saying that Chik-Fil-A is a "hate group" in order to justify their phoney boycott. There is nothing to indicate that CFA is a "hate group" but that fact doesn't seem to matter to the bullies calling for the boycott.

Considering the outpouring of support for the CFA resturants - this boycott is an absolute failure. CFA is selling more chicken than they ever did. Maybe this is a good time for the bullies and boycotters to reconsider why their repeated lies about CFA aren't convincing more people to join them.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

arrestpaul, so very true and getting new customers as well. The sandwich was very tasty and once in awhile is not going to kill a person. Bought sandwiches for my entire office. Again made a statement for free speech and if you do not like his views, you can go to Starbucks.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

YuriOtani Aug. 04, 2012 - 04:13AM JST Again made a statement for free speech and if you do not like his views, you can go to Starbucks.

I know it's a freedom of speech, but this is not how you want to run your company. If you are a CEO or the head of the company, stick with the issues of your own product and it's better to stay out of controversal issues. You might have short term gains in sales, but you are also create long term problem with alot of enemies that you don't know. You don't want to be looking over your shoulders each day.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The people behind the boycott are saying that Chik-Fil-A is a "hate group" in order to justify their phoney boycott. There is nothing to indicate that CFA is a "hate group" but that fact doesn't seem to matter to the bullies calling for the boycott.

No one has claimed Chick-fil-a is a hate group--just that it donates money to hate groups. The inability to make this distinction speaks volumes about your argument, such as it is.

The CFA resturants aren't preventing anyone from getting married.

Right--they just throw money at organizations that want to prevent certain people from getting married. Fairly simple stuff, here.

this boycott is an absolute failure.

I guess that remains to be seen over the course of time, just as it would be foolish to think that whatever one-day uptick in sales from the people in support of Chick-fil-a is somehow going to double or triple its profitability.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

sfip330, when does the head of a company lose his/her freedom of speech? First speech restrictions start with the few and end up with the entire population. That is how it worked in Japan prior to the Pacific war.

tenguleavings, there sure was a crowd there today! I had to wait for 30 minutes to make an order and receive the food. So this is day 3 and the more fuss the gay groups make, the longer it will last.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

there sure was a crowd there today! I had to wait for 30 minutes to make an order and receive the food. So this is day 3 and the more fuss the gay groups make, the longer it will last.

You of course realize that today was designated as the "Kiss-in" day, and you were likely assumed to be on the opposite side of the argument...this amuses me. To say nothing of the fact that you waited in line for a half hour for fast food, regardless of your true feelings on this issue.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

YuriOtani... As a result, how are the restaurant managers, franchise owners and corporate executives talking about this issue internally? What are they saying in team meetings to those workers who might feel uncomfortable about being in the middle of this firestorm? And what does this controversy do, not only to Chick-fil-A’s public brand, but to its “employment brand” among the young people it needs to hire? Who knows whether or not Cathy’s remarks will create risks for his sales over the long term—a temporary boost appears to be underway, and customers can have short-term memories. But at a time when young people increasingly support same-sex marriage, what kind of risks do they create for the company’s pool of potential employees?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I have to wonder how many of those good Christians, waiting in line at the Chik-Fil-A have ever worked at a soup kitchen or visited the sick. You know, the stuff Jesus commands us to do.

But...hey, if you all want to congregate in one spot, and eat really crappy food that takes forever to get to you because of the massive line, there's no skin off my nose. Me and my family will go to KFC where there's no line.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The CFA resturants aren't preventing anyone from getting married. They sell chicken sandwiches.

An excellent summation.

Why does the progressive left need to politicize EVERYTHING in America today ?????

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I have to wonder how many of those good Christians, waiting in line at the Chik-Fil-A have ever worked at a soup kitchen or visited the sick. You know, the stuff Jesus commands us to do.

That was just an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with so called Christians and has everything to do with FREE SPEECH and supporting that right and supporting that business to survive. Visiting the sick? Anyway, Free market supporters came out for that reason. There were people from all backgrounds, Christians, Atheists and even Gay people.

But...hey, if you all want to congregate in one spot, and eat really crappy food that takes forever to get to you because of the massive line, there's no skin off my nose. Me and my family will go to KFC where there's no line.

Taste is totally subjective, but if you haven't a Chick-fil-A, I really recommend that you try it. It's a lot healthier than KFC and much better tasting. Wish there was one in Japan.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

when does the head of a company lose his/her freedom of speech? First speech restrictions start with the few and end up with the entire population.

All the hand-wringing over the poor CEO's right to free speech. You know how much free speech the rank and file employees have? Zero. As in all corporate structures, and in this case, the ones who have to feel the heat of any boycott on the ground, they are officially banned from speaking their mind. And even if one of them does speak out because he or she might not agree with the CEO, how much longer do you think they'd have a job at Chick-fil-a if they expressed an opinion that differs from the corporate line?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

tenguleavings - No one has claimed Chick-fil-a is a hate group--just that it donates money to hate groups. The inability to make this distinction speaks volumes about your argument, such as it is.

Maybe you're not listening to what the bully boycotters have been saying? They're saying that Chick-Fil-A is a "hate group", that CFA is preventing gay marriage, that CFA is discriminating against gay customers and employees. CFA resturants aren't making donations to whatever groups the bully boycotters have identified as "hate groups". A seperate foundation makes donations to many groups supported by the COO.

The CFA resturants make and sell chicken sandwiches. To anyone.

The boycotters should concentrate their boycott efforts towards the organizations that ACTUALLY ARE against whatever they think they are against.

Many of the CFA supporters object to the phoney, misguided boycott and they appreciate a good chicken sandwich.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@honest dictator I haven't forgotten that. It is also completely irrelevant to my point about excusing bigotry if it is based on religious faith. Perhaps you would do well to think about the many churches issue foul condemnations against Christians who do support gay marriage. Is 'God hates fags and fag enablers' acceptable in the name of freedom of belief?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I grew up in the South and Chick-fil-a is a very popular restaurant chain. In fact they are very involved in fund raising and they even sell chicken sandwiches in a lot of schools for lunch. A lot of children prefer them over McDonald's, including my daughter. It would be difficult to tell them that we don't eat it anymore because of their religious views. The kids only want a tasty sandwich.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

They're saying that Chick-Fil-A is a "hate group",

If the company gives money to further the cause of a group that wants to make them less than equal, it's obviously not that far of a stretch. And please don't forget their right to say that--freedom of speech, you know. You're free to disagree.

The CFA resturants [sic] make and sell chicken sandwiches. To anyone.

Exactly--and once again, if homosexuals give them money, they'd be supporting groups that hate them, therefore, a boycott. Simple. They choose not to patronize restaurants (carefully note the spelling) that ultimately want to make them second-class citizens. Third-party observers will make their own decisions accordingly.

It would be difficult to tell them that we don't eat it anymore because of their religious views. The kids only want a tasty sandwich.

So, by this line of thinking, Chick-fil-a is the sole purveyor of tasty chicken sandwiches, and thus have us all over a barrel? Come on. There are so many more choices.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

They choose not to patronize restaurants (carefully note the spelling) that ultimately want to make them second-class citizens. Third-party observers will make their own decisions accordingly.

This kiss in protest thing today held at Chick-fil-A's across the country has caused this third party observer to make a decision about the company and the folks that run it and work there:

According to Twitter feeds:

ChickfilA in Tupelo, Miss employees served cold water to protesters....and never asked them their sexual orientation

News showed a Chick Fil A worker (Jonesboro AR) giving water and drinks to the protesters. WWJD? Probably that..

The mngr @ Columbia Ave #ChickFilA just brought some protesters water cups. pic.twitter.com/uqAcAUcq”

My roommate is a manager at @ChickfilA & said he handed out dozens of bottles of water to pro-gay protesters outside the store

My decision is......Well done and classy, impressed by Chick-fil-A management and employees, so called “Tolerant” liberals can learn a lot them.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

If the company gives money to further the cause of a group that wants to make them less than equal, it's obviously not that far of a stretch. And please don't forget their right to say that--freedom of speech, you know. You're free to disagree.

@Tengu

If CFA wants to give money to whatever group they want, when they want and however they want is their business, that is their Private money, CFA is a PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT company, therefore, they can do as they please, just like, you can do as you please, if you don't want to patron their restaurants, that is your right, but don't tell me I am wrong for supporting the company. Whether I agree with the CEO's stance on the issue or not is NOT important, but I will support ANY movement to try to silence them into saying that what and how he believes is wrong. Then you should take issue with the majority of Americans, because they feel the way he feels. If the CEO would make it a mandate telling their entire staff to feel the same or to treat Homosexuals bad, then you might have a compelling argument, but on this issue, you don't. I fully support free speech.

So, by this line of thinking, Chick-fil-a is the sole purveyor of tasty chicken sandwiches, and thus have us all over a barrel? Come on. There are so many more choices.

True, but CFA has the tastiest sandwiches, hands down! For Chicken sandwiches, Naw! CFA wrote the book on how eat a chicken!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Support for traditional marriage does not mean you hate gay people.

Those who can't see this and who are so quick to blur the distinctions, to make it black and white, or to designate the majority the 99 percent and their rivals the 1 percent, those are the people who are filled with hate.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

My decision is......Well done and classy, impressed by Chick-fil-A management and employees, so called “Tolerant” liberals can learn a lot them.

Perhaps Dan Cathy should be encouraged to have a nice talk with his employees, and then it wouldn't be so important to him to fund intolerance for a particular group of people.

you can do as you please, if you don't want to patron their restaurants, that is your right, but don't tell me I am wrong for supporting the company.

Not telling you you're "wrong" for supporting them, just that in doing so, you are giving money to people who support the idea that some people should have fewer rights than you.

Then you should take issue with the majority of Americans, because they feel the way he feels.

Even if you could somehow know this, you're on the wrong side of history. More and more people have realized that there's no sensible reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Plenty of people still thought it was wrong to free the slaves when it was done, but they'll get there. It just takes some people longer to think things over.

I fully support free speech.

Me too. Not sure why you still think this is the issue. Everybody can say whatever they want, and take the consequences of having said it.

Support for traditional marriage does not mean you hate gay people.

Right--it just means you want gay people to have fewer rights.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Perhaps Dan Cathy should be encouraged to have a nice talk with his employees, and then it wouldn't be so important to him to fund intolerance for a particular group of people.

That's his choice, whether he wants to or not, not your or my call to make.

Not telling you you're "wrong" for supporting them, just that in doing so, you are giving money to people who support the idea that some people should have fewer rights than you.

That is your opinion, but the MAJORITY of Americans support traditional marriage, no one said about them having less rights or wanting them to have less rights. If they don't believe in same sex marriage, they are entitled to believe in that.

Even if you could somehow know this, you're on the wrong side of history. More and more people have realized that there's no sensible reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Plenty of people still thought it was wrong to free the slaves when it was done, but they'll get there. It just takes some people longer to think things over.

I know this and I am not wrong, yes more and more people are opening up to people Gays and them being in a same sex marriage. People accepting slavery as opposed to accepting same sex marriage is very different argument, It is not a civil right issue. Blacks were for the most part considered to be 1/5 of a person, and not even thought to have been human, lacking of soul. Same sex marriage is about 2 people of the same sex wanting to marry is against the fundamental laws of nature. So will people get used to it, slowly, but very, very slowly. Will we see a gay President? it won't be in our life time no time soon.

Me too. Not sure why you still think this is the issue. Everybody can say whatever they want, and take the consequences of having said it.

I agree.

Right--it just means you want gay people to have fewer rights.

That is totally absurd. That kind of paranoia (that gay and gay supporters buy into) is just as bad as homophobia

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

That is your opinion, but the MAJORITY of Americans support traditional marriage, no one said about them having less rights or wanting them to have less rights. If they don't believe in same sex marriage, they are entitled to believe in that.

"Supporting traditional marriage" is just a way of saying "banning gay marriage" that makes its adherents feel better about themselves. Those who staunchly opposed interracial marriage said the exact same thing--they just supported "traditional marriage." If you don't want homosexuals to have the right to marry, then by definition you feel they should have fewer rights. Just own it! If you have to come up with euphemisms that soften it, perhaps you should reconsider what you believe in.

Same sex marriage is about 2 people of the same sex wanting to marry is against the fundamental laws of nature. So will people get used to it, slowly, but very, very slowly. Will we see a gay President? it won't be in our life time no time soon.

If it's "against the fundamental laws of nature" and at the same time "people get used to it, slowly, but very, very slowly," you should perhaps reconsider what you think of as a "fundamental law."

That kind of paranoia (that gay and gay supporters buy into) is just as bad as homophobia

No, the idea that homosexuals should just simply "shut up and accept" that they're second-class, and that furthermore, if they attempt to assert their rights, they're somehow either "paranoid" or "bullying" the poor majority, is classic absurdity. The facts are that organizations (the ones Dan Cathy supports) clearly are attempting to limit their rights. That's not paranoia, just simple fact.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

tenguleavings - If the company gives money to further the cause of a group that wants to make them less than equal, it's obviously not that far of a stretch. And please don't forget their right to say that--freedom of speech, you know. You're free to disagree.

Exactly--and once again, if homosexuals give them money, they'd be supporting groups that hate them, therefore, a boycott. Simple. They choose not to patronize restaurants (carefully note the spelling) that ultimately want to make them second-class citizens. Third-party observers will make their own decisions accordingly.

And you're boycotting the wrong organization. Chick-Fil-A sells chichen sandwiches. To EVERYONE who wants one.

There is a seperate foundation that gives money to support various causes and organizations. You seem to have a problem with these "other" organizations. It's easy for people to see that you're boycotting the wrong organization and people are buying chichen sandwiches to show they reject your boycott.

The CFA resturants and employees ARE NOT A HATE GROUP. Claiming that they are, when it's very obvious that they are not, is why this boycott has failed.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

And you're boycotting the wrong organization. Chick-Fil-A sells chichen sandwiches. To EVERYONE who wants one.

By refusing to buy chicken (carefully note the spelling) sandwiches from Chick-fil-a, the hate organizations have fewer dollars. Again, simple. If a company was donating money to the KKK, I wouldn't buy its products, either. And the "to everyone who wants one" argument has been refuted time and time again here--no one is suggesting they won't sell chicken (note the spelling) sandwiches to certain people; it's what that money goes to fund.

The CFA resturants and employees ARE NOT A HATE GROUP. Claiming that they are, when it's very obvious that they are not, is why this boycott has failed.

To proclaim either the boycott or its show of support a failure is foolish after not even one week has passed. Signs in fact point to Chick-fil-a's brand being harmed mightily. They have every right to take an ideological stand--and they'll accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

"Supporting traditional marriage" is just a way of saying "banning gay marriage" that makes its adherents feel better about themselves. Those who staunchly opposed interracial marriage said the exact same thing--they just supported "traditional marriage." If you don't want homosexuals to have the right to marry, then by definition you feel they should have fewer rights. Just own it! If you have to come up with euphemisms that soften it, perhaps you should reconsider what you believe in.

What a ludicrous thing to say. This is exactly the thing I am talking about. If you oppose gay people in any way, you are a homophobe. It's the same diatribe with Obama, you don't agree with him, you are a racist, or if you are afraid to get on a plane and you sit next to a person that looks arab you are anti-muslim. It's the typical, blah, blah, blah whine. You cannot say, just because a person believes in traditional marriage that he/she is against gay marriage or opposes it or wants less rights for gays, you cannot say that. That is a PERSONAL belief if I don't want my daughter to get a tattoo, it doesn't mean I am "Anti-Tattoo" inside, I am fine with it and if anyone wants to get it, fine. I support anyone wanting to get a tattoo, I respect it, I like tats, but I personally don't want any on my body! So, basically you are making the same argument. Because I don't want tats, I really have Tattoo-phobia in a nutshell that is what you are telling me. Also, how I feel about the issue and whom and what I support or how I believe is not important.

If it's "against the fundamental laws of nature" and at the same time "people get used to it, slowly, but very, very slowly," you should perhaps reconsider what you think of as a "fundamental law."

Yes, but now it seems like YOU are wanting to force people that don't agree or think like you to think the way you do would mean, now in your eyes, that person is being progressively smarter. NOT TRUE for some people. It is basically a fundamental law. More and more people will get used to it, but the gay lifestyle will never become mainstream and fully embraced or accepted like mainstream marriage, for one thing when it comes to pro-create, you can't do it with two men. If everyone or the majority people would be gay or a vast segment of the population, how would we have children? Just have lesbians artificially inseminated to keep the population going. I know it's far fetched, but I am just making a serious argument about the human population. People will change, adapt, to a large point, but to say that it will become mainstream is stretching it way too far.

No, the idea that homosexuals should just simply "shut up and accept" that they're second-class, and that furthermore, if they attempt to assert their rights, they're somehow either "paranoid" or "bullying" the poor majority, is classic absurdity.

No one is saying that but you, who now is paranoid? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUk-5R14jE0

The facts are that organizations (the ones Dan Cathy supports) clearly are attempting to limit their rights. That's not paranoia, just simple fact.

If that's his feeling on the issue, that is his right, I may not agree, but he is entitled to his opinion as you are yours, he will not change his position on the issue and you won't change yours, Leave it at that. Being a traditionalist does NOT mean you are against gay marriage, DOESN'T mean you are for it. It's people like you that seem to want to limit peoples rights, beliefs and opinions. That's a fact!

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

By refusing to buy chicken (carefully note the spelling) sandwiches from Chick-fil-a, the hate organizations have fewer dollars.

@Tenga

So now we should hold hands and punish the individual franchises of other CFA workers that have nothing to do with this issue, some of them might be single parents, or students or some senior citizen all of them trying to do an honest living, going to work to make money and you want to punish them for simply working for the company. Wow, but you are against hate speech, right. What you are advocating is Bullying and that is flat out wrong. Protest the CEO, send letters if you have to, but leave the people alone that are NOT directly involved in this. They can donate to the KKK, JDL, the Muslim Brotherhood, I don't care, as long as the company provides good food and service. You are NOT obligated to eat their food. But I love their food and would go in a heart beat

To proclaim either the boycott or its show of support a failure is foolish after not even one week has passed. Signs in fact point to Chick-fil-a's brand being harmed mightily. They have every right to take an ideological stand--and they'll accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/07/doing-well-by-doing-good-chick-fil-a-rakes-in-the-cash

Liberals and the gay community whining about this issue has made CFA reaping huge profits and the negative publicity has turned it into a rallying cry for supporters across the country. Good on them. This is actually helping them and more people that never heard of their products will want to see what all the fuss is about and try their tasty sandwiches.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

If you oppose gay people in any way, you are a homophobe.

Opposing their right to live in the same fashion as anyone else is hardly the same as living and letting live because the way they choose to live doesn't affect you in the least--what else could you call it?

It's the same diatribe with Obama, you don't agree with him, you are a racist, or if you are afraid to get on a plane and you sit next to a person that looks arab you are anti-muslim.

Who are the people making these kinds of arguments? That's right--stupid people. No one takes these "arguments" seriously because they aren't serious arguments.

You cannot say, just because a person believes in traditional marriage that he/she is against gay marriage or opposes it or wants less rights for gays, you cannot say that.

I can, because it's true. The whole point of the phrase "traditional marriage" is to distinguish it from the types of marriage that its proponents don't like, and the organizations in question take action to ensure that no one else can engage in marriage outside what they consider "traditional."

but the gay lifestyle will never become mainstream If everyone or the majority people would be gay or a vast segment of the population, how would we have children?

Here's where we get to the heart of the matter--fear of the idea that "the Gays" not only want to have the same rights as everyone else, but that they're on a mission to convert EVERYONE else and force them to be gay, too. An idea rooted in fear and ignorance, but fear is a powerful motivator. And the tired old saw that "there won't be any more babies" is also pure idiocy, mainly because of its assumption that no heterosexuals will exist if you grant homosexuals the right to marry, and heaven forbid, raise a child in a loving home. As far as "mainstream" meaning "accepted," homosexuals would be glad to take that much. They're not looking to be "mainstream" in the sense that they outnumber heterosexual couples--again, an idea based on fear and ignorance.

No one is saying that but you, who now is paranoid?

When you think denying a group of people the same rights as you is OK, and that when they stand up to reject that idea, that they're "blah blah blah whining" or even trying to impose their beliefs on you when they're not, that is exactly what you (tacitly) say.

It's people like you that seem to want to limit peoples rights, beliefs and opinions.

I would like to limit people's rights to deny others theirs, yes--fact indeed.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Here's where we get to the heart of the matter--fear of the idea that "the Gays" not only want to have the same rights as everyone else,

They have the same rights as everyone else. The exact same rights that any single person has. The issue is that they no longer wish just to be accepted that they gay and go about their business and private lives, they wish now to be granted a special victim status within society because of their preferred sexual practice.

They are not demanding rights, they are asking to be above and beyond extra granted privileges that are currently withheld from any straight single people who also do form partnerships with other straight singles, such as home ownership and cannot get the tax break between them because they are straight not gay. This is an undeniable fact and it puts this entire issue into the proper focus.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

tenguleavings, first amendment and they sell tasty chicken. The Gays seem to be paranoid at best. So what are you? You protest too much I think. In any case it is not my fight, am on the side of tasty chicken.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

They have the same rights as everyone else. The exact same rights that any single person has.

Except the right to marry the people they choose--incredible that that fact has seemingly sailed right past you.

they are asking to be above and beyond extra granted privileges that are currently withheld from any straight single people

These put-upon straight singles you speak of have the option of marrying; they simply choose not to exercise it. Homosexuals would like the right to make that choice, too.

undeniable fact and it puts this entire issue into the proper focus.

I agree--simply making things up seems to be the order of the day, and you're doing a fantastic job.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

and they sell tasty chicken

Well-reasoned. Never was a first amendment issue--you just want it to be. And, besides, tasty chicken, right?

So what are you? You protest too much I think.

Another classic of sound reasoning. Ask my wife. Tasty chicken!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Tenga

Opposing their right to live in the same fashion as anyone else is hardly the same as living and letting live because the way they choose to live doesn't affect you in the least--what else could you call it?

They can live anyway they want. I'm originally from California, Gay capitol of the world, Gays have a lot of power, they work in all fields of almost every kind of occupation, Most people don't have a problem with them. They can live anywhere and be who they want to be as they want to be. That is living and let live.

Who are the people making these kinds of arguments? That's right--stupid people. No one takes these "arguments" seriously because they aren't serious arguments.

Then is anyone was stupid, then it must've been liberals and gay protesters that made it an issue, instead of accepting that the CEO has a point of view and I don't want to buy from him, but it all backfired and P***** off a lot of people that are tired of having or being forced to accept something they may not want. Even Obama is (but flip flopped, we know why) and said that He basically is not for gay marriage. Why aren't you guys protesting that. Why didn't Rahm Emanuel step down knowing the Presidents view of the issue. My conclusion is, it is selective criticism, bashing Conservatives or even Liberals that don't agree with Traditional marriages. So the stupid people are the ones that tried to make an issue out of this when it clearly was not an issue.

Here's where we get to the heart of the matter--fear of the idea that "the Gays" not only want to have the same rights as everyone else, but that they're on a mission to convert EVERYONE else and force them to be gay, too. An idea rooted in fear and ignorance, but fear is a powerful motivator. And the tired old saw that "there won't be any more babies" is also pure idiocy, mainly because of its assumption that no heterosexuals will exist if you grant homosexuals the right to marry, and heaven forbid, raise a child in a loving home. As far as "mainstream" meaning "accepted," homosexuals would be glad to take that much. They're not looking to be "mainstream" in the sense that they outnumber heterosexual couples--again, an idea based on fear and ignorance.

Right back at you, many gays want to force you into believing something that the majority of the people don't believe in and that on their part would be considered fear as well. This too, to force people in a certain way to use scare tactics and intimidation vile, rude and repugnant. But don't use that argument of fear and acceptance, I could say the same thing about the gay community. The way they act is based on fear and ignorance. I get the argument that they are not looking to be "mainstream" but you can't make butter with a toothpick, it'll take time and the more you try to impose your values like the Sea Shepard, PETA and and all these other organizations that get in your face, will anger people and kill the discourse. Not to mention, if you look at the Latino and African-American population, they are the majority that oppose it the most and that will take a very, very, very long time to accept it.

When you think denying a group of people the same rights as you is OK, and that when they stand up to reject that idea, that they're "blah blah blah whining" or even trying to impose their beliefs on you when they're not, that is exactly what you (tacitly) say.

You keep rehashing the same old talking points! NO one is denying anyone anything, the CEO has a PERSONAL belief and that is it. But your arguments are trying to-so call, "wake people up" to CFA a company that had nothing to do with gay rights issue. I will say this again, if you want to punish the company, stay home, go to KFC show them by choosing where you want to buy your food, but don't penalize a franchisee because of one man's comments, if the entire company thought like that, I get it, but that is not the case.

I would like to limit people's rights to deny others theirs, yes--fact indeed.

That is "your own personal" opinion. That is a fact!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

@Yuri

They really do have tasty chicken! Wish they would come to Japan!!

@Tenga

Except the right to marry the people they choose--incredible that that fact has seemingly sailed right past you.

What is wrong with civil unions? As long as they are entitled to the same rights and laws that protect straight people and couples. I said, I agree, they should have the same rights, but my argument is why the word "marriage" what is the difference? The Sacrament and institution and symbol of marriage is defined in the traditional sense of a man an woman union. NOW, gays have and should have the same rights, but in my opinion the WORD marriage should be defined under the law as a man and woman. I think the majority of people don't have a problem with that. Some states allow gay marriages and that is their call, but until then, having civil unions and having the same equal protection is just as good.

These put-upon straight singles you speak of have the option of marrying; they simply choose not to exercise it. Homosexuals would like the right to make that choice, too.

Another straw man argument. The majority of the human are heterosexual or mainstream by the majority of default this is what we would call normal. As a minority, they have to fall in with the majority. If gays want to marry, that will take time and they should talk to their city council and work within their community to slowly try to come to an agreement or find ways to educate people, but to yell, scream, threaten people is never the answer and will always backfire.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

They can live anyway they want. I'm originally from California, Gay capitol of the world, Gays have a lot of power, they work in all fields of almost every kind of occupation, Most people don't have a problem with them. They can live anywhere and be who they want to be as they want to be.

If they'd like to enjoy the benefits of being legally married, obviously they cannot live anyway they want. The fact that you continue to refer to them as "The Gays" is pretty telling, by the way.

people that are tired of having or being forced to accept something they may not want.

That's just it--granting homosexuals the right to marry affects those who aren't homosexuals not a single bit. "Something they may not want"--why? What difference would it make to their lives?

Even Obama is (but flip flopped, we know why)

Insert standard Obama rant here.

want to force you into believing something that the majority of the people don't believe in

They just want to have the same rights and could care less what you believe. Asking for equality in the land of supposed equality is not forcing anyone to believe in things they don't want to. Giving money to organizations that seek to deny people equality or change them is trying to impose your values on others.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

What is wrong with civil unions? I said, I agree, they should have the same rights, but my argument is why the word "marriage" what is the difference?

Right--if it's the same thing as marriage, why bother with the euphemism? To protect someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"? Why should they have to accept even different language to describe what others have? That in itself is insulting and demeaning. What's the difference, indeed?

but in my opinion the WORD marriage should be defined under the law as a man and woman.

Why? What would be different other than your delicate sensibilities being catered to?

As a minority, they have to fall in with the majority.

Very egalitarian thinking here--everyone be the same, or at least have the smarts not to complain.

they should talk to their city council and work within their community to slowly try to come to an agreement or find ways to educate people,

Why, when they'll only be told to fall in with the majority? How can you educate people who have no interest in even considering something that isn't "traditional"?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

if they'd like to enjoy the benefits of being legally married, obviously they cannot live anyway they want. The fact that you continue to refer to them as "The Gays" is pretty telling, by the way.

Then they need to talk to their congressman and fight for the right to live wherever they want to, but that is a completely different issue. As for calling them gays, what else should I call them, how should they be addressed? Hetero-challenged? That's like me calling African-Americans- Blacks, so now I am a racist, right? You know nothing about me or how I think, so you shouldn't make ANY assumptions!

That's just it--granting homosexuals the right to marry affects those who aren't homosexuals not a single bit. "Something they may not want"--why? What difference would it make to their lives?

So, why do you need the word marriage if it doesn't make a difference?

Insert standard Obama rant here.

That's because you can't spin your way out of that one. Even Obama can't. He was all his life against it and now he has an epiphany and a change of heart? Now, this year? Oh, wait, we have an election in November.

They just want to have the same rights and could care less what you believe. Asking for equality in the land of supposed equality is not forcing anyone to believe in things they don't want to. Giving money to organizations that seek to deny people equality or change them is trying to impose your values on others.

And most people want them to have equal rights and NOT be bothered or having them come up to our faces in front of us, pushing and forcing this issue of acceptance down our throats. Giving money individually is NOT forcing an Agenda on anyone, it is that individuals personal belief as to how and what they believe. But Gays do try to constantly push the issue, I can give you hundreds of examples.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

As for calling them gays, what else should I call them, how should they be addressed? Hetero-challenged?

Hetero-challenged--that's just it. You clearly believe that they're "less than," and it shows in how you refer to them.

So, why do you need the word marriage if it doesn't make a difference?

Because that's what it is--why should they accept something less than what it is, with a secondary term for the same thing? Why is that so important to the people who aren't involved in their marriages?

That's because you can't spin your way out of that one. Even Obama can't. He was all his life against it and now he has an epiphany and a change of heart? Now, this year? Oh, wait, we have an election in November.

Right, he's a politician looking for political advantage; business as usual. Not sure why it's relevant.

Giving money individually is NOT forcing an Agenda on anyone, it is that individuals personal belief as to how and what they believe.

And pointing out that the giving of money to certain groups is not forcing an agenda on anyone--they can make their decisions accordingly. Put it this way--if I was totally indifferent, but then decided I wanted some Chick-fil-a, only to find a three-hour wait because thousands of people were "supporting" them, I'd feel like something was definitely being forced upon me, as opposed to people simply not going there.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Why should they have to accept even different language to describe what others have?

They do accept that different language must be used to describe what others already have. The traditional term marriage is to be enhanced with the term same-sex in front of it to expand it and change it from the traditional sense of a man and woman ......into a man and man, a woman and a woman, and a man and woman into a one size fits all meaning.

A view that really is quite at odds with all cultures throughout the world and in recorded human history. There is no tradition of gay marriages throughout human history ever being placed on the same par as a marriage between a man and woman.

The concept of gay marriage to be exactly on same par with a traditional marriage with the long held religious overtones that accompany a marriage ceremony is a modern construct that seeks to promote a change through the force of law in one of the most basic foundations of society. Marriage itself should be left to the churches, which are much better suited to protect the institution with Government totally out of the picture.

For Governments role. There should never be any proposed any law to ban gay relationships, and the law should never interfere with consenting adults in creating legal domestic partnerships for property or anything else to confers the legal benefits of a marriage to the partners and this where the Government should begin and where it should end on the issue.

There is a difference between what societies the world over has bestowed over centuries to sanctified relationship between a man and a woman called a marriage and a same sex relationship during the same course of history. If there was not a difference and tradition this whole debate and discussion would never occur and have to be on the table to discuss in the first place.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

tenguleavings, the thing is sales will improve for some time. This whole business introduced me to their tasty chicken. Am not the only one who has discovered their yummy food. Look me and my family are Catholic in these matters look toward the mother church.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They do accept that different language must be used to describe what others already have.

No, they want "marriage." Do often refer to "different-sex marriage"?

A view that really is quite at odds with all cultures throughout the world and in recorded human history.

Well, slavery was once considered completely normal and "fundamental," and the idea of man flying through the sky was crazy talk. Progress is a good thing.

I would imagine those who are barred from marrying don't much care whether it's government or religion bestowing some kind of ultimate authority over the institution. They simply want access to it, and I imagine it's equally frustrating that their attempts to obtain it are met with "this is the way it's always been, therefore it can't be changed."

Look me and my family are Catholic in these matters look toward the mother church.

Not sure how I can respond to that, other than to remind you that you are in fact allowed to actually think for yourself; you don't need to cede all your thinking to some other entity.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

tenguleavingsAug - By refusing to buy chicken (carefully note the spelling) sandwiches from Chick-fil-a, the hate organizations have fewer dollars. Again, simple. If a company was donating money to the KKK, I wouldn't buy its products, either. And the "to everyone who wants one" argument has been refuted time and time again here--no one is suggesting they won't sell chicken (note the spelling) sandwiches to certain people; it's what that money goes to fund.

To proclaim either the boycott or its show of support a failure is foolish after not even one week has passed. Signs in fact point to Chick-fil-a's brand being harmed mightily. They have every right to take an ideological stand--and they'll accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

What do you mean "one week"? I've found references to this ill-conceived boycott dated Feb 19, 2011. http://www.queerty.com/cows-for-equality-the-moo-moos-revolt-against-chick-fil-a-20110219/ That's over 17 months. No one knew, or cared, about this boycott until several U.S. mayors decided to exceed their authority by illegally threatening to ban the restaurants. This boycott has been a failure for a long time.

You don't seem to understand that the COO is involved with a seperate foundation that donates money to various groups. You can claim that these various "other" groups are hate groups because you don't agree with their goals and you can boycott them. That might make sense provided you knew who those "other" groups actually are.

The Chick-Fil-A restaurants sell chicken sandwiches to anyone who wants to buy one.

When the chicken sandwich-buying public became aware that several mayors had lost their minds and that gay groups were wrongly targeting CFA for something they weren't even doing, the chicken sandwich-buying public showed its overwhelming support for CFA. This year-and-a-half year old boycott is a failure.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Tenga

Hetero-challenged--that's just it. You clearly believe that they're "less than," and it shows in how you refer to them.

How I refer to them, does NOT imply anything, you are just making a pure accusation and an assumption.

Because that's what it is--why should they accept something less than what it is, with a secondary term for the same thing? Why is that so important to the people who aren't involved in their marriages?

Why is it so important for many people to who want to involve themselves and force society to change a word or the definition of a word? Why is it so important to have that word, it is just a word, so if it so important for you, why must you have it? As long as men and women, gay or straight are treated equally under the law and constitution, the wording should not matter at all. You need to decide what is more important as per the masses, they don't want to change the definition of marriage, that is a losing argument or the rights of the people of all races, religion, creed or color be protected? You can't have it all.

Right, he's a politician looking for political advantage; business as usual. Not sure why it's relevant.

It is relevant, because of the constant and blatant hypocrisy that liberals think that they are so above everyone else, so Obama gets a pass because he is a staunch traditionalist in every sense of the word. Liberals can flip flop on gay issues and they are NEVER held accountable, unlike Conservatives that cannot say anything for fear of retribution and any statement will be considered-"homophobic."

And pointing out that the giving of money to certain groups is not forcing an agenda on anyone--they can make their decisions accordingly. Put it this way--if I was totally indifferent, but then decided I wanted some Chick-fil-a, only to find a three-hour wait because thousands of people were "supporting" them, I'd feel like something was definitely being forced upon me, as opposed to people simply not going there.

Again, another straw man argument. I would agree, if the CEO was pushing his employees to think the way he does, then by all means it rebuked. But that is not the case, stating your opinion, DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING. You can make an argument and make everyone a bigot, a racist or a fascist. If Black people hate Heavy Metal, does that make them racists towards Whites? If a woman prefers a skinny guy over a bodybuilder, does that make her necessarily prejudiced towards people that work out? If I prefer DC comics over Marvel, what does that make me. If I like Korean food over Japanese food, what does that make me? I can go on and on and nitpick about EVERYTHING, it does not mean one thing over another, it is just a personal preference and belief, like I said, you don't like it, there is always the KFC you can go to.

Well, slavery was once considered completely normal and "fundamental," and the idea of man flying through the sky was crazy talk. Progress is a good thing.

Progress is a good thing depending on your point of view, it may not be the best thing for everyone, but when it comes to Same sex relationships, it will take a much, much longer time for people to accept it and embrace it fully, which will never happen on a large scale.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Well, slavery was once considered completely normal and "fundamental," and the idea of man flying through the sky was crazy talk. Progress is a good thing

Slavery has been contentious moral issue through-out human history, slave revolts since even before the Roman times and the bible itself is steeped in the story of Moses freeing the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt. Not a very good comparison in my opinion.

Also for the record I could care less if Adam and Steve shack up and then get a piece of paper formalizing the relationship, good on em.

I also recognize as most Americans that the relationship between a woman and a man and a relationship between a same sex couple is going to different just due to the biology involved (no pesky who left the toilet seat up issues) and on a real serious note, other dynamics that will never just never appear in a male / female marriage relationship.

They are distinct and very seperate type of unions and marriage should stay what it always has been the formal recognition of a union of a man and a woman and not stretched to cover anything further. Gay relationships should stay in the realm of a legally recognized civil union or domestic partnership in my humble opinion.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I also recognize as most Americans that the relationship between a woman and a man and a relationship between a same sex couple is going to different just due to the biology involved (no pesky who left the toilet seat up issues) and on a real serious note, other dynamics that will never just never appear in a male / female marriage relationship.

They are distinct and very seperate type of unions and marriage should stay what it always has been the formal recognition of a union of a man and a woman and not stretched to cover anything further. Gay relationships should stay in the realm of a legally recognized civil union or domestic partnership in my humble opinion.

@Sailwind

100% agreed!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Right--if it's the same thing as marriage, why bother with the euphemism? To protect someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"? Why should they have to accept even different language to describe what others have? That in itself is insulting and demeaning. What's the difference, indeed?

Why bother with using the terms heterosexual and homosexual I mean it is nothing more than euphemism right? What is wrong with protecting someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"? Some homosexuals I know get up in arms about people using the word "gay" to mean stupid or dumb, to them the word "gay" means homosexual and should only mean homosexual, are they wrong to try and protect their precious concept of the term "gay"?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@bassa

As long as men and women, gay or straight are treated equally under the law and constitution, the wording should not matter at all.

The word becomes important when someone has always denied it to you.

or the rights of the people of all races, religion, creed or color be protected? You can't have it all.

You don't think this is possible or even desirable? Sad.

Liberals can flip flop on gay issues and they are NEVER held accountable

Well, when the conservative word on the matter is ALWAYS to marginalize and consider homosexuality disgusting and repugnant, it's hard to "flip-flop." If anything, so-called liberals like Obama are forced to pretend to toe the line artificially to placate the pretend-Christianity of the right.

But that is not the case, stating your opinion, DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING.

For the billionth time, the issue is not that he stated his opinion. The issue is that his company gives money to groups that encourage a group of Americans to be treated unequally.

Progress is a good thing depending on your point of view, it may not be the best thing for everyone,

Yes, the people who have been accustomed to treating some people unequally might have a hard time adjusting. I don't feel particularly bad for them.

@sailwind

a same sex couple is going to different just due to the biology involved (no pesky who left the toilet seat up issues) and on a real serious note, other dynamics that will never just never appear in a male / female marriage relationship.

If you don't worry about the "toilet seat issues" and "other dynamics" of an Adam/Eve marriage relationship, why do you care about the same in an Adam/Steve marriage relationship, enough so that the law has to somehow be involved?

@Noliving

Why bother with using the terms heterosexual and homosexual I mean it is nothing more than euphemism right?

Because those are not euphemisms, they're the terms themselves.

What is wrong with protecting someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"?

Because it comes at the expense of another group's rights.

Some homosexuals I know get up in arms about people using the word "gay" to mean stupid or dumb, to them the word "gay" means homosexual and should only mean homosexual, are they wrong to try and protect their precious concept of the term "gay"?

Because if you use the term that they use to describe themselves in a pejorative sense meaning "stupid or dumb," it's a bit of an obvious insult regarding who they are, wouldn't you say?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

tenguleavings - .....For the billionth time, the issue is not that he stated his opinion. The issue is that his company gives money to groups that encourage a group of Americans to be treated unequally.

The COO's foundation (ie not the restaurants) donates money to "other" organizations that they support. The CFA restaurants aren't in the donating business. You're targeting the wrong business. This boycott is a failure because they're targeting the wrong organization. CFA sells chicken sandwiches to "anyone" who wants them.

You're not boycotting the actual groups that allegedly encourage unequal treatment. You're not boycotting the COO's foundation. You decided to boycott restaurants that are not racist and don't discriminate and the public isn't supporting this boycott.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The CFA restaurants aren't in the donating business.

The bottom line is that the money "anyone" gives CFA at the restaurant level ultimately makes for more money to donate to groups that want certain groups to have fewer rights than everyone else. And once again, no one ever suggested that CFA was somehow refusing to serve homosexuals.

You're not boycotting the actual groups that allegedly encourage unequal treatment.

First, there's not much "alleged" about these groups encouraging unequal treatment. Second, if CFA wants to throw its lot in with them, fine. Other large corporations such as Ford and JC Penney have embraced the LGBT community and reaped the rewards. Those such as CFA that choose to publicly align themselves against it will take their chances, as is their right. And before anyone cries about "bullying," it's not--simply people making decisions.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Tenga

The word becomes important when someone has always denied it to you.

It is just after all a word, but if it is that important, civil unions should be significant as long as their rights are protected.

You don't think this is possible or even desirable? Sad.

That depends on your point of view.

Well, when the conservative word on the matter is ALWAYS to marginalize and consider homosexuality disgusting and repugnant, it's hard to "flip-flop." If anything, so-called liberals like Obama are forced to pretend to toe the line artificially to placate the pretend-Christianity of the right.

Forced to pretend. The Black and most of the Hispanic community are hardly Conservative, they vote usually liberal and are mostly liberal except when it comes to gay issues. They are NOT being influenced anywhere and both communities overwhelmingly are against same sex marriage. I don't hear you mentioning anything about that or any other gays staging protests in those communities.

For the billionth time, the issue is not that he stated his opinion. The issue is that his company gives money to groups that encourage a group of Americans to be treated unequally.

And for the billionth time, each store is independently owned and independently operated. Stop lumping all of CFA as one consolidated entity.

Yes, the people who have been accustomed to treating some people unequally might have a hard time adjusting. I don't feel particularly bad for them.

I agree and that includes Gays, you will always have bigotry in this world, just like you will always have poverty, but giving anyone preferential treatment, affirmative action, which in itself is racist, which is something we just don't need right now! The Gay community often tries to get attention by bringing up issues which at this point and time with all the crap that is going on in America, this is an issue that can wait, but needs to be addressed at a later date and time.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Tenga

The bottom line is that the money "anyone" gives CFA at the restaurant level ultimately makes for more money to donate to groups that want certain groups to have fewer rights than everyone else. And once again, no one ever suggested that CFA was somehow refusing to serve homosexuals.

If that were the case, but they are NOT discriminating against Gays. Again, if people will think it is an issue, they will not support him. But apparently, people are flooding his restaurant and more power to them. The chain shouldn't have to suffer because of one CEO's opinion.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@bass(insert brainless onanistic toy pun that I've been ignoring for days now)

It is just after all a word, but if it is that important, civil unions should be significant as long as their rights are protected.

Just a word, so call it marriage and everyone's happy.

That depends on your point of view.

Progress to give everyone equal rights is sometimes bad? As long as you have yours, you're OK, and those that don't are just "whining." This is just who you are and what you believe, I guess. Hope no one (especially the big bad mean old Obama government) ever tries to abridge your rights, because by your own stated viewpoints, you'll just have to shut up and accept it until your opposition deems it the right time to address the issue that they've already made up their mind about.

The Black and most of the Hispanic community are hardly Conservative, they vote usually liberal and are mostly liberal except when it comes to gay issues.

And they do so largely out of fear and ignorance, until they actually take a moment to think about how some of the actual people in their lives are homosexual--then it's not so scary, after all.

And for the billionth time, each store is independently owned and independently operated.

To believe that none of the dollars that go into an independently owned and operated franchise is pretty naive and foolish.

I agree and that includes Gays, you will always have bigotry in this world

So your plan is to simply ignore the bigotry? When did you give up on the world? And there's the idea again that homosexuals want something above and beyond, not equality.

which at this point and time with all the crap that is going on in America, this is an issue that can wait,

And there's the patronizing "this isn't important right now" argument. I'm Martin Luther King would've been happy to simply wait until the bigots lynching black people were ready to hear him out.

If that were the case, but they are NOT discriminating against Gays.

They give the money that customers (some of which at least might have been homosexual) give them to groups that work to make homosexuals lesser in the eyes of the law. I fully understand why you continually misrepresent this to be the idea that they won't sell to homosexuals--red herrings are important when you don't have an argument.

The chain shouldn't have to suffer because of one CEO's opinion.

Why? Again, he exercised his freedom of speech, and that has consequences, both for him and the company of which he's the CEO. Time will tell-- a few days' worth of increased sales versus a plummeting brand image. Which will win out over time?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

That should be:

To believe that none of the dollars that go into an independently owned and operated franchise then go on to the franchiser is pretty naive and foolish.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

tenguleavings - First, there's not much "alleged" about these groups encouraging unequal treatment. Second, if CFA wants to throw its lot in with them, fine. Other large corporations such as Ford and JC Penney have embraced the LGBT community and reaped the rewards. Those such as CFA that choose to publicly align themselves against it will take their chances, as is their right. And before anyone cries about "bullying," it's not--simply people making decisions.

CFA sells chicken sandwiches. That's what they do. if you want to boycott the "other", unassociated, groups that lobby the lawmakers, go right ahead. But you've picked the wrong target. This boycott has been a failure for some 18 months. CFA is expanding. The chicken sandwich-buying public doesn't believe CFA is a hate-group or that they discriminate against anyone. The bully boycotters have failed to make their case because they have no case against CFA.

The stupidity of several Democrat-machine run city mayors brought this boycott to the attention of the public and the public is chosing to support CFA against the mayors and the bully boycotters.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This is not about liking or not liking gays or gay marriage. This is about forcing your personal and religious beliefs on other people.

Anyone who does not like gay marriage is free not to engage in one themselves. But to stop others from doing so is clearly and totally wrong and inexcusable. Those opposing government recognition of gay marriage will find themselves on the wrong side of history, sharing a sludge pit with those who opposed the abolishments of slavery and segregation, and those that opposed women's rights to vote.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 12:39AM JST

This is not about liking or not liking gays or gay marriage. This is about forcing your personal and religious beliefs on other people.

Yes, the pro-gay marriage groups should stop forcing their beliefs on others.

As Voltaire said (paraphrased), I disagree with what you write but I will gladly give my life to defend your right to say it. The president here did not prevent anyone from speaking their mind or writing it, and should not have his voice stiffed. So far all I see in the article and comments is that pro-gay marriage supporters wish to deny people the right to object, as well as deny the business the right to do business for the use of protected speech by one employee.

Luckily, many people remember the virtues that founded the country, and are choosing to eat some damn good chicken sandwiches regardless of the politics.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The chicken sandwich-buying public doesn't believe CFA is a hate-group or that they discriminate against anyone.

And now Dan Cathy has conveniently made it clear that they do, so the chicken sandwich-buying public can make its decision accordingly.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Yes, the pro-gay marriage groups should stop forcing their beliefs on others.

Yes, they really should stop fighting to be treated equally--makes all kinds of sense.

As Voltaire said (paraphrased), I disagree with what you write but I will gladly give my life to defend your right to say it. The president here did not prevent anyone from speaking their mind or writing it, and should not have his voice stiffed.

Once again, no one objects to anything he said (although by your logic, protesters exercising their same rights are 'forcing their beliefs on others"). The objection is to supplying money to groups that support unequal treatment of the people they disagree with. No one wants to deny anyone's right to object--they can do that all they want. They simply want equal treatment.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

tenguleavings - And now Dan Cathy has conveniently made it clear that they do, so the chicken sandwich-buying public can make its decision accordingly.

And the chicken-sandwich-buying public has made it's decision. They don't support the misguided bullying of the CFA restaurants. This boycott has failed.

In order to be successful, the gay-rights supporters need to get better at picking their battles. This particular boycott still doesn't have popular support after 18+ months and it doesn't seem that it ever will. Better luck next time.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@arrestpaul

In order to be successful, the gay-rights supporters need to get better at picking their battles. This particular boycott still doesn't have popular support after 18+ months and it doesn't seem that it ever will. Better luck next time.

Yes, this was poorly organized.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Tenga

@bass(insert brainless onanistic toy pun that I've been ignoring for days now)

Trying to be a smart**?

Just a word, so call it marriage and everyone's happy.

Because it is just a word and they have and should have same and fair equal treatment under the law. The wording is not important. Civil union should suffice just as well.

Progress to give everyone equal rights is sometimes bad? As long as you have yours, you're OK, and those that don't are just "whining." This is just who you are and what you believe, I guess. Hope no one (especially the big bad mean old Obama government) ever tries to abridge your rights, because by your own stated viewpoints, you'll just have to shut up and accept it until your opposition deems it the right time to address the issue that they've already made up their mind about.

You are putting emotion into the argument and in doing so will take you out of the discourse. You are entitled to state your point of view and no one is hindering you from it and no one told you to shut up. Whether you are gay or straight you should have equal rights. I have never met ANY gays that had a problem anywhere with the minor exception of wanting the word "marriage" written on their civil unions certificate. You keep droning the same drum beat over and over about equality. You will always have people that are not for same sex couples and you can't change that. As long as they can have the same laws that protect the majority of mainstream society, that IS the real issue that should be of concern, not some form of a word or Euphemism.

And they do so largely out of fear and ignorance, until they actually take a moment to think about how some of the actual people in their lives are homosexual--then it's not so scary, after all.

That is your opinion. It seems like you are sounding bigoted towards religion or people that believe in it. This is a losing battle. You will never convince at least NOT in the foreseeable future Catholics and Baptists or most traditionalists to accept homosexuality. It just won't happen. Whether they know people that are or not.You will always have a few that will be accepting, but that a huge portion of these faiths turn around and with open arms take them to their bosoms, will not happen. If you want to think and call it ignorance, you are entitled to that viewpoint, just as they are entitled to think that homosexuality is a sin against God. You will not meet a common ground on this issue.

To believe that none of the dollars that go into an independently owned and operated franchise is pretty naive and foolish.

You don't know that. You are just making an assumption and you are pre-judging these franchises. Pre-judge=prejudice. So now you are being prejudiced in thinking that all these independently owned chains are all bigots, where you have absolutely NO proof.

So your plan is to simply ignore the bigotry? When did you give up on the world? And there's the idea again that homosexuals want something above and beyond, not equality.

I just said, you will always have bigotry in the world and as much as it is wrong and vile, you will never eradicate it from our society. You try where you can, but as with bigotry takes time, accepting Gays will take time too. You call it bigotry, others will call homosexuality immoral. Again, it depends on your point of view.

And there's the patronizing "this isn't important right now" argument. I'm Martin Luther King would've been happy to simply wait until the bigots lynching black people were ready to hear him out.

You can't make the moral equivalency between lynching and being Gay. Gays are not being strung up and this is NOT an issue at this very moment that needs to be addressed immediately. It can wait. The economy, however, cannot! Being able to provide for your family or the possibility of losing your home are first priorities, NOT same sex issues or what or how a person believes.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Tenga

Continued:

They give the money that customers (some of which at least might have been homosexual) give them to groups that work to make homosexuals lesser in the eyes of the law. I fully understand why you continually misrepresent this to be the idea that they won't sell to homosexuals--red herrings are important when you don't have an argument.

Another Straw man argument? Yes, you are right, it could have, just like my tax dollars are paying for teachers and police officers etc, that retire at 47 years and I have to pay for their pensions for another 30-40 years. I mean, your money is always going somewhere to someone or some group that you don't like or support. No one is trying to sell Gays anything. I'm not misrepresenting anything. You are just coming at it from a emotional standpoint. You are frustrated, the same as some people or Gays that cannot force people to see things the way they do, then they resort to calling people bigots or intolerant or homophobes and that tactic never, ever works. The "in your face" method is THE worst method to use, because it just aggravates and infuriates the majority to conform to a way you want them to instead of education and understanding and accepting each persons personal feelings about the issue. It is a slow progress, but better than nothing.

Why? Again, he exercised his freedom of speech, and that has consequences, both for him and the company of which he's the CEO. Time will tell-- a few days' worth of increased sales versus a plummeting brand image. Which will win out over time?

Believe me, the company is in no way shape or form hurting right now. This publicity turned out huge profits for the company, got the name out to people who never heard of the chain and now people are curious and want to tryout what all the controversy is all about and taste this delicious chicken. And good for them. No company franchise should ever suffer because of one persons personal beliefs.

@Tenga

@bass(insert brainless onanistic toy pun that I've been ignoring for days now)

Trying to be a smartass?

Just a word, so call it marriage and everyone's happy.

Because it is just a word and they have and should have same and fair equal treatment under the law. The wording is not important. Civil union should suffice just as well.

Progress to give everyone equal rights is sometimes bad? As long as you have yours, you're OK, and those that don't are just "whining." This is just who you are and what you believe, I guess. Hope no one (especially the big bad mean old Obama government) ever tries to abridge your rights, because by your own stated viewpoints, you'll just have to shut up and accept it until your opposition deems it the right time to address the issue that they've already made up their mind about.

You are putting emotion into the argument and in doing so will take you out of the discourse. You are entitled to state your point of view and no one is hindering you from it and no one told you to shut up. Whether you are gay or straight you should have equal rights. I have never met ANY gays that had a problem anywhere with the minor exception of wanting the word "marriage" written on their civil unions certificate. You keep droning the same drum beat over and over about equality. You will always have people that are not for same sex couples and you can't change that. As long as they can have the same laws that protect the majority of mainstream society, that IS the real issue that should be of concern, not some form of a word or Euphemism.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You will never convince at least NOT in the foreseeable future Catholics and Baptists or most traditionalists to accept homosexuality. It just won't happen.

You don't have to be religious to be against the idea of "gay marriage".

The company does not discriminate against gay people. There are no signs saying that gay people can not eat at a Chick Fil-A restaurant. The only hatred here is hatred against people that believe in a particular organized religion. Which is ironic because Muslims are rabidly anti-gay but you never hear of gay and lesbian groups protesting in front of a Mosque. There right to free speech and freedom of religion is respected. For that reason, this attack on the CEO's freedom of speech is nothing other than.... "hate" because he is a Christian that actually believes what his religion says he believes.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Tenga

And now Dan Cathy has conveniently made it clear that they do, so the chicken sandwich-buying public can make its decision accordingly.

Did he publicly state that CFA is a hate group? Is there ANY proof or a long history of the company having been known to associate with ANY hate groups? Can you factually prove this? People can make their decision, but labeling that a hate group, is very far fetched.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So far all I see in the article and comments is that pro-gay marriage supporters wish to deny people the right to object,

How? Are they making constitutional amendments to shut them up? No. The only group making constitutional amendments and laws to block the rights of anybody is the anti-gay marriage group! If the debate gets heated, its because of the jerks supporting the removal of rights of some people with legal action, not dreams or even words, but actual, real, legal and enforceable action.

Seriously, what have the pro gay marriage people done but talk and protest? And you feel threatened? Get a grip on reality please!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@bassa

Time to make the donuts, yet again. Sigh...

Trying to be a smart**?

I suppose it is possible that you simply can't see the "uleavings" part. It would fit in with your pattern of being unable or unwilling to see.

Because it is just a word and they have and should have same and fair equal treatment under the law. The wording is not important. Civil union should suffice just as well.

Civil unions and marriages are not the same, and the rights afforded a couple in each are different, to say nothing of the fact that some states don't even have civil unions. Civil unions therefore do not suffice, despite what you think is best for homosexuals. And as the two concepts are not the same, the wording is important, obviously.

and no one told you to shut up.

Me? We're not talking about me. When you tell homosexuals that their equality simply isn't important, you're both demeaning them as well as telling them to shut up and wait.

I have never met ANY gays that had a problem anywhere with the minor exception of wanting the word "marriage" written on their civil unions certificate.

I'm glad YOU haven't, but there are places where homosexuals are regularly harrassed, beaten, raped, murdered, and treated as less than human. They have quite a larger slate of problems. And your experience is hardly a large enough sample size.

You keep droning the same drum beat over and over about equality.

I wish I didn't have to, but some people just need to hear things a few times before it sinks in.

It seems like you are sounding bigoted towards religion or people that believe in it.

Gee, because the religious types have certainly been level-headed in the matter. Believe away--just don't try to impose your belief in a the magical sky man on anyone else. You see, that's the part they have such a hard time with. No one needs to convince them. However, letting them (and the organizations we've been talking about most definitely identify as Christian) lobby for unequal treatment of the people they don't like is unacceptable and needs to be opposed.

You are just making an assumption and you are pre-judging these franchises.

To think it's all clouded in mystery, that we somehow are unsure that any money at all goes from your local Chick-fil-a--at least you're good for a laugh. Yes, Dan Cathy somehow finds money in the street and it has nothing at all to do the corporation of which he's CEO. The whole point of the franchising is that the operators pay the franchiser for the use of their corporate IP. The entire reason why Chick-fil-a is so large today is because of all the cash from the franchisees. But you're not convinced--after all, it could all just be a huge coincidence. And no one ever made any claim that every owner and employee of a CFA franchise is a bigot--just that dollars spent there end up going to bigoted organizations.

You try where you can, but as with bigotry takes time, accepting Gays will take time too. You call it bigotry, others will call homosexuality immoral. Again, it depends on your point of view.

What a muddled mess of thinking this is. "you try where you can"? Except you then go on to say it's not important. Yes, it does depend on your point of view, indeed--which in no way implies both are right. Slave owners were once completely certain they were right (and hey, they even had some convenient biblical backup).

Gays are not being strung up

First, this simply isn't true--in some places, homosexuals are in fact being physically assaulted and killed simply for being who they are, whether you choose to close your eyes to it or not.

this is NOT an issue at this very moment that needs to be addressed immediately. It can wait.

Not at all patronizing in the slightest. But wait, someone once said "you try where you can..."

The economy, however, cannot!

For a moment, it's almost like you're suggesting that buying fast food chicken is a better answer to the more pressing issue of the economy. Yes, economics are an issue--and? It's really easy to rank what problems are most pressing when they're not yours, I guess.

just like my tax dollars are paying for teachers and police officers etc

You have a problem with this? Paying for police and fire protection is something you'd rather your tax dollars NOT go toward? Impossible to please everyone, I suppose. To say nothing of the fact that taxes are mandatory, and what private companies people support with their money (and what those profits are then used for) is not.

No one is trying to sell Gays anything...then they resort to calling people bigots or intolerant or homophobes

I'm not sure even you understand what you're saying at this point. I'm just repeating the simple fact that supporting unequal rights for some people and being OK with some people as second-class is bigotry. You just don't want to own up to it, it would seem, with all this willful blindness.

instead of education and understanding and accepting each persons personal feelings

So as long as homosexuals "accept" and "understand" that they're second-class, there's no problem, right? When you say that religious people (who are operating completely on faith) are free to hold the opinion that homosexuality is immoral because God and the bible say so, how exactly would you suggest the LGBT community go about "educating" them patiently?

Believe me, the company is in no way shape or form hurting right now.

I guess that's why I said "time will tell." You know, actual time has to pass, or at least more than one week. The brand is actually at a lower ebb than ever, which should be more troubling to its executive officers. Ask a marketing professional. As for the huge one-day turnout--well, so long as they can keep those three-hour lines going, they'll be fine, right?

No company franchise should ever suffer because of one persons personal beliefs.

Correct--just for what that person uses the company's profits to fund.

@wolfpack

For that reason, this attack on the CEO's freedom of speech is nothing other than.... "hate" because he is a Christian that actually believes what his religion says he believes.

You're a little late to the party, wolfpack--we've already established that no one is impinging on his right to say whatever he wants, just that he uses his corporations' profits to fund organizations that lobby for unequal treatment for some people. But if what you're saying is true and he honestly believes what his religion says he does, I suppose he'll be familiar with the phrases "love one another" and "turn the other cheek." And don't forget supporting slavery and women as the property of men--in the bible, donchaknow.

Did he publicly state that CFA is a hate group?

I guess some basic reasoning powers on the part of the listener are implied. Giving money to hate groups is as it sounds. If he announced he was giving money to the KKK, would you even ask this kind of question? I know you're a fan of "it depends on your point of view" and all.

Can you factually prove this?

Sure--Chick-fil-a openly supports the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups such as the Aryan Nation and the KKK. Chick-fil-a also openly supports Exodus International, and organization that claims to "cure" homosexuality by way of religion.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

tenguleavings - Sure--Chick-fil-a openly supports the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups such as the Aryan Nation and the KKK. Chick-fil-a also openly supports Exodus International, and organization that claims to "cure" homosexuality by way of religion.

A foundation started by the COO is supported by many people and organizations and the foundation supports many organizations. On the other hand, Chick-Fil-A restaurants sell chicken sandwiches. To anyone. No discrimination. No hate.

You've chosen to boycott the wrong organization and the chicken sandwich-buying public isn't buying your bullying tactics.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Time to make the donuts, yet again. Sigh...

Hate Donuts!

I suppose it is possible that you simply can't see the "uleavings" part. It would fit in with your pattern of being unable or unwilling to see.

Right back at you, buddy. I could say the exact same thing about you.

Civil unions and marriages are not the same, and the rights afforded a couple in each are different, to say nothing of the fact that some states don't even have civil unions. Civil unions therefore do not suffice, despite what you think is best for homosexuals. And as the two concepts are not the same, the wording is important, obviously.

Then you need to speak to your local representative, try to make the appropriate changes to give civil unions THE EXACT rights as in marriage. That would same sex and heterosexual put them on the same level, without changing the word.

Me? We're not talking about me. When you tell homosexuals that their equality simply isn't important, you're both demeaning them as well as telling them to shut up and wait.

You will always have that, sorry. You will never have the the Gay community be fully embraced, that's just the fact. No matter what you say, cry, have a temper tantrum, getting in peoples face and trying to force people to think or believe a certain, will not help , not in the least.

I'm glad YOU haven't, but there are places where homosexuals are regularly harrassed, beaten, raped, murdered, and treated as less than human. They have quite a larger slate of problems. And your experience is hardly a large enough sample size.

Again, it happens sad as it is, but if you think that these crimes will cease, probably it won't. Do whatever you have to in order to protect yourself. You will always have bullies that hate Gays, Blacks, Jews, Asians, Muslims etc. People that are different or look or act different. The only thing you can do is deal with it as it comes, but again, you are living in Oz, if you think that you can change peoples perceptions, it's what all of us would like, but in reality, different story.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Tenga

I wish I didn't have to, but some people just need to hear things a few times before it sinks in.

But that can also turn people off and you can quite often get a negative response.

Gee, because the religious types have certainly been level-headed in the matter. Believe away--just don't try to impose your belief in a the magical sky man on anyone else. You see, that's the part they have such a hard time with. No one needs to convince them. However, letting them (and the organizations we've been talking about most definitely identify as Christian) lobby for unequal treatment of the people they don't like is unacceptable and needs to be opposed.

Again, another Straw man argument. Some guys mocking Jesus walking in a Church, cross dressing and disturbing a service and there are so many examples where Gays would get in your face and force you to accept them or to understand them, that is just as bad. I don't hear you complain or accusing them of hate speech. You can oppose all you want, you are wasting your time. Most of your organized religions are against homosexuality and want nothing to do with it and you already know that, so leave those people alone if they don't want to accept an alternate lifestyle, it's their right. As the local and federal laws protect you and your freedom of speech, you should be content.

To think it's all clouded in mystery, that we somehow are unsure that any money at all goes from your local Chick-fil-a--at least you're good for a laugh. Yes, Dan Cathy somehow finds money in the street and it has nothing at all to do the corporation of which he's CEO. The whole point of the franchising is that the operators pay the franchiser for the use of their corporate IP. The entire reason why Chick-fil-a is so large today is because of all the cash from the franchisees. But you're not convinced--after all, it could all just be a huge coincidence. And no one ever made any claim that every owner and employee of a CFA franchise is a bigot--just that dollars spent there end up going to bigoted organizations.

To call CFA a bigoted Org. without hard substantial facts, then you making assumptions. You are entitled to believe that if you want, I do not and you don't have to eat their tasty chicken. http://www.kltv.com/story/19183398/chick-fil-a-reports-record-profits-on-appreciation-day

What a muddled mess of thinking this is. "you try where you can"? Except you then go on to say it's not important. Yes, it does depend on your point of view, indeed--which in no way implies both are right. Slave owners were once completely certain they were right (and hey, they even had some convenient biblical backup).

Trying to equate slavery with Gay rights is not the same issue and don't get me started explaining why because it would be off topic and would probably get a warning from the moderators. But as I said, it depends on your point of view.

First, this simply isn't true--in some places, homosexuals are in fact being physically assaulted and killed simply for being who they are, whether you choose to close your eyes to it or not.

Yes, I know, I meant generally speaking in the states it usually doesn't happen.

Not at all patronizing in the slightest. But wait, someone once said "you try where you can..."

In due time, in due time.

For a moment, it's almost like you're suggesting that buying fast food chicken is a better answer to the more pressing issue of the economy. Yes, economics are an issue--and? It's really easy to rank what problems are most pressing when they're not yours, I guess.

Sorry, but as of right now for the US and the dire state that it's in, the economy is all that matters now, nothing else. Gay issues and other issues can wait or are you telling me that 8.3% unemployment is acceptable and that is not a high priority, some people can't put food on the table, but we have to worry about Gay rights issue at the forefront?

You have a problem with this? Paying for police and fire protection is something you'd rather your tax dollars NOT go toward? Impossible to please everyone, I suppose. To say nothing of the fact that taxes are mandatory, and what private companies people support with their money (and what those profits are then used for) is not.

Again, not trying to get off topic, but yes, I have a problem with this. I want a strong economy and a strong private sector, paying taxes is mandatory, but when it gets to the point that the country is being over-taxed, then it is a huge problem for the country. Over taxed, high recession, high unemployment, weak dollar, high corporate taxes. This is what will happen to the rest of the country if we go down this road. Been saying this over and over, just look at California, my home state. When you over tax people, this is what happens. http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/27-reasons-why-california-is-bankrupt/

I'm not sure even you understand what you're saying at this point. I'm just repeating the simple fact that supporting unequal rights for some people and being OK with some people as second-class is bigotry. You just don't want to own up to it, it would seem, with all this willful blindness.

I think YOU are blind, I don't have a problem with anyone, gay people can be as they want, love as they want, but you cannot force people to accept gays if they don't want, everyone has the right to feel the way they want to feel. I like slim women, does that make me a hater of heavy women? Am I not allowed to have a preference?

So as long as homosexuals "accept" and "understand" that they're second-class, there's no problem, right? When you say that religious people (who are operating completely on faith) are free to hold the opinion that homosexuality is immoral because God and the bible say so, how exactly would you suggest the LGBT community go about "educating" them patiently?

I am not saying that, I leave that to each individual as to how they want to approach the issue and I NEVER said that Gays are second-class you said that. Gays certainly have their opinions as to how they see the world and want the world to view them, so straight people have also the right to feel the way they want to feel as long as they don't physically abuse anyone.

I guess that's why I said "time will tell." You know, actual time has to pass, or at least more than one week. The brand is actually at a lower ebb than ever, which should be more troubling to its executive officers. Ask a marketing professional. As for the huge one-day turnout--well, so long as they can keep those three-hour lines going, they'll be fine, right?

Yep, the chicken is really good, I suggest you try it and cool down with some lemonade.

Correct--just for what that person uses the company's profits to fund.

You have absolutely NO, ZERO proof of that. Don't make false accusations or don't be prejudice!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Readers, you are starting to go around in circles. Please stop repeating yourself and do not be impolite to one another.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You've chosen to boycott the wrong organization and the chicken sandwich-buying public isn't buying your bullying tactics.

It's a good place. Reasonable prices and tasty food. They are going strong and I think the publicity is helping the company and pushing it into the spotlight. Good for them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@bassoon

Then you need to speak to your local representative, try to make the appropriate changes to give civil unions THE EXACT rights as in marriage. That would same sex and heterosexual put them on the same level, without changing the word.

If they were the same, there'd be no need to pointlessly change the term, because they'd both be marriage.

You will never have the the Gay community be fully embraced, that's just the fact. No matter what you say, cry, have a temper tantrum, getting in peoples face and trying to force people to think or believe a certain, will not help , not in the least.

The idea is not to be 100% embraced (whatever that would be), just to have 100% of the same rights. Fighting for that is anything but "throwing a tantrum."

Again, it happens sad as it is, but if you think that these crimes will cease, probably it won't. Do whatever you have to in order to protect yourself.

I see. Let's just take the prohibition of murder off the law books, then. After all, as much as we don't want people to murder each other, we'll never be rid of it, so people should just protect themselves as they see fit.

you are living in Oz, if you think that you can change peoples perceptions,

Again, your message seems to be "give up." How utterly sad.

Again, another Straw man argument. Some guys mocking Jesus walking in a Church, cross dressing and disturbing a service and there are so many examples where Gays would get in your face and force you to accept them or to understand them, that is just as bad. I don't hear you complain or accusing them of hate speech.

Do you honestly think this ever happens, anywhere, or that it happens with some kind of frequency, so much so that it's considered a standard practice to somehow convince churchgoers of something? I guess they're just exercising their freedom of speech. It might be misguided and a dumb way to try to "convince" people of something, to say nothing of the fact that those peoples' acceptance isn't even necessary, but that has nothing to do with the overall fight to make sure everyone has the same rights. Did somebody (randomly capitalize) Straw man argument?

most of your organized religions are against homosexuality and want nothing to do with it

Right, and as we've already established, homosexuals could care less about religions accepting their lifestyle; they simply want to have the same rights as everyone. The religious types and the homosexuals never have to come into contact at all. Curious, then, that it's religious groups that lobby to deny homosexuals their equality. Perhaps they should simply live and let live.

To call CFA a bigoted Org. without hard substantial facts, then you making assumptions.

Chick-fil-a gives money to bigoted organizations and proudly admits that fact. No assumptions being made at all.

Trying to equate slavery with Gay rights

They're both clearly morally wrong, and both practices have apologists who tie themselves in rhetorical knots trying to justify them.

Sorry, but as of right now for the US and the dire state that it's in, the economy is all that matters now, nothing else. Gay issues and other issues can wait or are you telling me that 8.3% unemployment is acceptable and that is not a high priority, some people can't put food on the table, but we have to worry about Gay rights issue at the forefront?

Unfortunately, in the real world, no one is ever afforded the opportunity to simply put every other issue on hold while one and only one is worked on. Sure, the economy is important to a vastly larger group of people. And guess what? Some of those people who can't put food on the table are even homosexuals. That doesn't mean it's OK to ignore it completely until someone arbitrarily decides the time is finally right to even start thinking about it.

when it gets to the point that the country is being over-taxed, then it is a huge problem for the country.

And how exactly would granting homosexuals the right to marry increase the tax burden?

I don't have a problem with anyone, gay people can be as they want, love as they want, but you cannot force people to accept gays if they don't want, everyone has the right to feel the way they want to feel. I like slim women, does that make me a hater of heavy women? Am I not allowed to have a preference?

Once more, homosexuals aren't lobbying to have everyone like them or accept them, which is obviously pointless. They're lobbying to have the same rights as everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a hater of heavy women, because even if you were, it's unlikely that you would then form a group that lobbies the government to deny heavy women the right to marry, correct? You could live your entire life without caring what heavy women do or how they lead their lives. It wouldn't affect you one bit.

I NEVER said that Gays are second-class

By supporting the idea that homosexuals should not have the same rights as everyone else, you're saying it tacitly. You don't have to explicitly state it.

so straight people have also the right to feel the way they want to feel as long as they don't physically abuse anyone.

Absolutely. They can feel any way they want. What they can't do is try to have the laws changed to deny homosexuals the same rights they enjoy.

Yep, the chicken is really good

I think everyone on both sides is now comically overstating the quality of the chicken served there. Those who support CFA are pretending like it's an absolute revelation, and have seemingly sworn to make it their sole purveyor of chicken from now on. Those who oppose CFA act like they now have some kind of dilemma, because after all, there simply are no other places to get fast-food chicken, and whatever will they do? I've had a Chick-fil-a less than two miles away and haven't visited it for years. I'm pretty sure I'll find a way to carry on.

You have absolutely NO, ZERO proof of that. Don't make false accusations or don't be prejudice!

I really don't know how this is supposedly not an established fact--we know, for a fact, that Chick-fil-a has given money to the Family Research Council, and Dan Cathy proudly admits it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

All I have to say to that is, you have your feelings about the issue made your point, mine is, you cannot hold a independently owned franchise responsible for what the CEO said, that's my problem, you have an issue, write a letter, if the company would really in all its entirety would do as you say, I honestly would think no one would support CFA, but that is not the case. Thinking so means that, you think that Americans are not intellectuality smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Personally, I know a few gays that still eat there and have no problem with the company and don't blame the entire company, they know the CEO has the right to say what he wants, are they happy, one of them said, she doesn't care, that's his opinion and I say, good for her. Rationality is the key here. In other words, it's an individual decision, I respect you don't want to give CFA your business, but respect others that want to.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

tenguleavings, like it better than KFC but like all American fast food, it makes a person FAT. Look this is not my fight if once in awhile want tasty chicken will eat at Chick Fillet. So what is this fight to you? Do you have a horse in the race?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I respect you don't want to give CFA your business, but respect others that want to.

You seriously want respect for bigots? People who go there for the chicken, fair enough. People who go there to demonstrate their support for backward, discriminatory nonsense, no.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

You seriously want respect for bigots?

People that think homosexuality is perverted, gross, and immoral are not bigots. The owner of Chick-fil-A believes that homosexuality is a sin because of his religion. I am not religious and therefore do not see it as a "sin". However, it is gross and disgusting. Most Christians and Muslims have a different opinion from Liberal's and atheists. Why be so intolerant of other peoples free speech and freedom of religion? The restaurant serves every customer that comes through the door - yes, even the homosexual ones. The only bigots are those that do not respect people that think differently from themselves.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Wolfpack

Gee, they is even kind enough to serve homosexuals folks, well the law says they have to , it sure aint due to empathy.

I think those who think homosexuals are gross and disgusting are gross and disgusting.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Personally, I know a few gays that still eat there and have no problem with the company and don't blame the entire company, they know the CEO has the right to say what he wants, are they happy, one of them said, she doesn't care, that's his opinion

It's pretty clear that there's no shortage of people who just aren't interested in thinking too deeply about it (stopping at the idea that it's somehow only about free speech). If so, so be it. It's more of a "you can't say you were never told" sort of thing. You know what your money is going toward, and if you're OK or indifferent to that, fine.

So what is this fight to you? Do you have a horse in the race?

I just think it's clearly wrong to support inequality for some people and to try to legislate it. The moment you think it's OK for one group to be treated unfairly, you're next, regardless of whether you think this one is your fight.

People that think homosexuality is perverted, gross, and immoral are not bigots.

That's exactly what they are, so that argument begins and ends right there.

Why be so intolerant of other peoples free speech and freedom of religion?

Tolerate my intolerance of you, or else you're intolerant. Pure nonsense. Why be so intolerant of some people's sexuality that has absolutely nothing to do with your life? Oh, that's right--because it's "gross and disgusting."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

lucabrasi - You seriously want respect for bigots? People who go there for the chicken, fair enough. People who go there to demonstrate their support for backward, discriminatory nonsense, no.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. didn't even know there was an 18+ month old boycott of CFA. It wasn't until the mayors of several Democrat-machine controlled cities decided that city, state, and federal laws no longer applied to anyone or any business the mayor didn't like. The chicken sandwich- buying public turned out in droves to defy the mayors and the bully boycotters who had wrongly targeted CFA. Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate. Chick-Fil-A sells chicken sandwiches.

Go boycott the organizations that are actually lobbying the lawmakers or lobby the lawmakers yourself. You "might" be able to find some popular support if people forget how screwed up this boycott is. As things stand now, this particular boycott is a failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The owner of Chick-fil-A believes that homosexuality is a sin because of his religion.

Well, the law of land is not supposed to be based on religious belief. I believe it is a sin to try and force your religious belief on others! In fact, I think its a crime!

However, it is gross and disgusting.

No it isnt! You only THINK it is! Well guess what? So do I! Is that germane? No it isnt! Personal perceptions are no more relevant that religious belief on this issue. The only relevant questions are if people or society are seriously harmed by gay marriage. No they arent obviously. People dont need doctors for gays being married and society is not going to fall apart because such a small percentage of men and women enter into a gay marriage.

Paranoia and personal feelings are irrelevant. Human rights are paramount.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why be so intolerant of other peoples free speech and freedom of religion?

This is not about free speech! This is about taking action against gay marriage!

And if my religion requires human sacrifice, do you think its intolerance to stop me? No religion gets to violate human rights! That is NOT intolerance! Its the natural and obvious course of having a separation of church and state!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Denon.

That is the real problem. The USA claims separation of church and state but don't practice it.

In most countries you get married by filling in a paper for a legal marriage (gay or not), then religious ceremony is up to you. Example; Japan.

Heck I was married in South Africa and the lady that did the ceremony was confused as she had foreigners(european and asian) before her. She asked me if we exchanged rings, etc. Both being agnostic there was no church wedding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites