Chick-Fil-A As A Case Study For Same-Sex Marriage As A Threat To Religious Freedom

[MorningStar]

Mellybug, + 1,000,000!

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

The best response for any business owner when asked such questions is to simply say "No Comment" and walk away. His job is to make money, he has a fiduciary obligation to his employees. His personal religious beliefs are his own concern, not that of his employees or the public that buys his product. Or as my Basic Training Staff Sargent told us. "Pray to any God you like cause your a$$ belongs to me".

[KevinG]

KevinG:

Yes I did read it.

I doubt that McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell own employees sue them even that much.

You would be wrong. Very wrong.

Very very wrong

Very very very wrong

As long as you agree with that company's religion you're fine. What happens if you don't want to pray to their Jesus?

You allow them to express themselves freely or get sued (rightfully) as one Chick-fil-a franchisee found when they tried to fire a Muslim employee for just that. One example every two years in an entire chain does not a pattern make.

What happens if I don't want your 85%(The portion that Chic-Fil-A keeps) going to Pray away the Gay "therapies" ?

I was unable to find "Pray away the Gay therapies" listed in the Winshape camps. marriage classes or group homes for foster children. Perhaps you will be the first to find them and answer the long standing CFR on this thread.

I have nothing against Chic-Fil-A's product. Be careful those Bible values you so blithely endorse were used against the Mormons, and are still used against us by bigots.

Chick-fil-a and the Cathy family employ a ton of Mormons and recognize their freedom of religion. Many of our local youth and adults love to work at Chick-fil-a and are quite respected. Not to mention rehired after their missions. Unlike some virulent critics of the Mormons the Cathy family and the large number Greek Orthodox Christian and other Protestant executives and franchisees don't seem to find the bigotry and opposition to Latter-day Saints in the Bible, just common values like family, hard work, honesty and charity.

Before you make more assertions remember you are talking to someone who has met the Cathy sons, worked with their executives donating time to state government, and goes to church with long time franchise owners, LDS managers and LDS employees. I'm not so quick to buy the demonization of these good people.

Edited August 2, 2012 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

I wonder if their will be a kiss-in at Wendys resaurants too. Or if this is just a publicity stunt by Wendy's to ride the wave and garner patrons.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/02/traditional-marriage-stance-spreads-to-wendy/

[KevinG]

KevinG:

The best response for any business owner when asked such questions is to simply say "No Comment" and walk away. His job is to make money, he has a fiduciary obligation to his employees. His personal religious beliefs are his own concern, not that of his employees or the public that buys his product. Or as my Basic Training Staff Sargent told us. "Pray to any God you like cause your a$$ belongs to me".

You can bet that Chick-fil-a has learned their lesson and is now voluntarily silencing their personal opinions to satisfy those who would deny them their free speech and association rights under the 1st amendment of the constitution:

"Jul. 31, 2012

Chick-fil-A Response to Recent Controversy

Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business.

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. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."

By the way here is the actual terrible quote from Dan Cathy (printed editorial comments are not his):

[media=]

Given on a show devoted to religious thought.

http://www.kencolema...about-the-show/

Now explain to me how Dan's free speech rights should be curtailed again?

Edited August 2, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I know. Lets play a fun game since the CFR requests seem to be going nowhere. (I just saw where treehugger and jaybear got thread banned so I guess the CFRs will remain unanswered).

You find a video of someone (first hand not a reporter) saying they went to Chick-fil-a yesterday to protest gay marriage.

I will then post a video of someone saying they went to Chick-fil-a to support free speech.

Got it "gay marriage" or "free speech" in first person quotes.

Lets see who runs out of video evidence first!

Anyone who wants to post someone talking about "gay marriage" as the reason they went can go first just to be fair.

No takers?

I have to go to local Mormon Ward to teach my Boy Scouts. Perhaps I'll bring Chick-Fil-A cookies to complete the trifecta of hatred?

If you find some video evidence of people eating at Chick-fil-a to keep gays from marrying post it and I will provide evidence of people eating there to support free speech.

[Zakuska]

Influx of conservative patrons crash Chick-Fil-A's computer systems:

After posting my photos of my Chick-fil-A encounter on my Facebook page, I started getting comments from people who were experiencing the same phenomenon in their communities. The manager at my store told me business had been so intense their computer system crashed nationwide and had to be restarted. In the meantime, hundreds of people waited patiently and quietly to simply get their turn.

http://tucsoncitizen...irst-amendment/

Edited August 3, 2012 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

And now you see what hateful anti-gay fanaticism can do to an otherwise respectable human being .

Develop obesity and diabetes by overenthusiastically consuming chicken sandwiches and nuggets.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

First off papa, No one asked for a CFR prior your "still no CFRs" and since there were no CFRs issued that brings into question your tactics here.

And yes, never let the fact of one persons unwillingness to be inform stand in the way of the facts. while I understand your circumstances might limit your movements or other abilities (are you still one your back) perhaps it would help if you read news from original sources and not from a source that promotes itself as "we read the news so you don't have too".

I brought up in a now closed thread created by selek1 that CFA had donated money Winshape.

Here is the entire post of mine:

If I gave money to lighthouse ministries, hardly a soul here would think twice about calling me an anti-mormon.

Yet, when Chik Fil A gives money to anti-gay groups, and groups which oppose gay marriage, it is unconscionable and shredding of the Constitution to suggest that the Cathy's oppose gay marriage.

Here is a statement from Cathy from over a year ago:

IIRC others have mentioned CFA donations to anti-gay groups.

Lastly, your CFR here is simply in my opinion just a method of you to pester, and given your recent CFRs to me, your current CFR seem less and less about you wanting to know information but more about hassling someone with a CFR.

But since you asked for donation information:

equalitymatters.org

The fact that I re-asked for it.

[wenglund]

So just what are you ranting about for 12 pages if everyone agrees with you?

If I had said that everyone has agreed with me, then this would be a pertinent question to ask me. However, since I haven't said this for obvious reasons (it happens to be clearly false to anyone who has taken the time to read through the 12 pages), it isn't pertinent to ask me this, and you are wrong yet again to insinuate that I had suggested it. At least you are consistent in that regard.

And, you have also still not apologized to Selek for falsely accusing him.

What is your point that requires your serial responses?

The point is there are people like you participating on this thread who are uniformed and comprehension challenged and it takes considerable effort educating them and unraveling their confused thinking. This should have been self-evident to you of all people given this latest series of exchanges between you and I.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Develop obesity and diabetes by overenthusiastically consuming chicken sandwiches and nuggets.

We all have to go sometime.

[selek1]

The best response for any business owner when asked such questions is to simply say "No Comment" and walk away.

Ah, yes- the ever-so-tolerant Leftist mantra of "Keep Your Mouth Shut".

Clearly enunciated in the First Amendment.

His job is to make money, he has a fiduciary obligation to his employees.

Call For References, please. Where, precisely, is this fiduciary obligation outlined?

Also- except for the manufactured outrage of a pampered fringe class- how precisely- has his exercise of his First Amendment rights impacted this "obligation"?

His personal religious beliefs are his own concern, not that of his employees or the public that buys his product.

And yet neither are they anything to be ashamed of- in point of fact, they built his business and are still shared by more than half of the country.

Your argument is essentially that Christian values have no place in the public forum- and that Cathy can be punished for expressing them.

If have two questions: First, who made YOU the arbitor of what views are suitable for public expression?

Second, from where in the Constitution is your authority derived?

Because your arguments and position are contraindicated by the United States Constitution and more than two centuries of case law.

Or as my Basic Training Staff Sargent told us. "Pray to any God you like cause your a$$ belongs to me".

I'm willing to bet your Sergeant also said, "We're here to protect democracy, not practice it."

Guess what- radical thuggery and bought politicians not with standind, people such as Dan Cathy and his supporters are practicing democracy.

However much you may dislike it.

[ERayR]

Ah, yes- the ever-so-tolerant Leftist mantra of "Keep Your Mouth Shut".

Clearly enunciated in the First Amendment.

Call For References, please. Where, precisely, is this fiduciary obligation outlined?

Also- except for the manufactured outrage of a pampered fringe class- how precisely- has his exercise of his First Amendment rights impacted this "obligation"?

And yet neither are they anything to be ashamed of- in point of fact, they built his business and are still shared by more than half of the country.

Your argument is essentially that Christian values have no place in the public forum- and that Cathy can be punished for expressing them.

If have two questions: First, who made YOU the arbitor of what views are suitable for public expression?

Second, from where in the Constitution is your authority derived?

Because your arguments and position are contraindicated by the United States Constitution and more than two centuries of case law.

I'm willing to bet your Sergeant also said, "We're here to protect democracy, not practice it."

Guess what- radical thuggery and bought politicians not with standind, people such as Dan Cathy and his supporters are practicing democracy.

However much you may dislike it.

Wish I could extend more rep points.

[selek1]

Before you make more assertions remember you are talking to someone who has met the Cathy sons, worked with their executives donating time to state government, and goes to church with long time franchise owners, LDS managers and LDS employees. I'm not so quick to buy the demonization of these good people.

Ironically- despite his "late comer" status, TSS's post most clearly demonstrates the danger raised in the OP.

Despite numerous calls for references and ample opportunity to do so, no one on the Left has offered a single credible allegation of ethical or legal misconduct on the part of the Cathy family, their corporation, or the charities to whom they donate.

Lots of name-calling and gnashing of teeth- but no evidence of misconduct or malfeasance.

Despite that fact- and motivated by the purity of their holy cause- gay rights advocates have not only sought to strip Cathy of his First Amendment protections- but are now arguing that he has a moral duty to remain silent.

That sort of fanaticism is corrosive to the principles of liberty and good governance bequeathed to us by our Father in Heaven and enumerated- not granted- in the Constitution.

These are, of course, the same people who will argue passionately and at length that the First Amendment exists to protect pornographers and seditionists- and intone piously that "the voice of the little guy" must be protected.

The problem is that the United States Constitution and Supreme Court have made it amply clear that religious speech- not merely filth and political dissent- are specifically entitled to protection under the law.

The attacks on Cathy and his like-believers are being done specifically to silent dissence- to avoid the free exchange of information and ideas in favor of a specific agenda and goal.

To allow one-side of an argument to arbitrarily and unilaterally silence the other is not only anethema to the Constitution, but is a violation of eternal law as well.

Our agency is predicated on our ability to choose for ourselves. By arbitrarily silencing one side of the debate, pro-SSM advocates are striving to deny both present and future generations the information necessary to make informed choices.

They are practicing unrighteous dominion not only in deciding what people may say, but also by controlling what people may hear.

TSS and the other critics have never addressed why the Cathy family or the charities they support are wrong. They never address Cathy's ideas or practices- the simply sneer and dismiss them out of hand.

The same people who scream the loudest when the "Vagina Monologues" and "Crucifix-in-urine" are "censored" are the first ones in line with gag and shackles when thier ideas are challenged in the market place of ideas.

If such behavior is rewarded with success, it will be followed by greater excesses and greater restrictions.

Whether Dan Cathy is the third greatest person to ever walk the Earth or a reprobate who makes Ebeneezer Scrooge look saintly and compassionate is ultimately irrelevant.

The First Amendment guarantees his right to say the things he said and to support the charities that he did.

Those rights are inalienable- not bestowed or revoked based on the fickle winds of political orthodoxy.

Anyone who pretends otherwise has either never taken or has forgotten their oath to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution.

Edited August 3, 2012 by selek1

[Bob Crockett]

The attacks on Cathy and his like-believers are being done specifically to silent dissence- to avoid the free exchange of information and ideas in favor of a specific agenda and goal.

To allow one-side of an argument to arbitrarily and unilaterally silence the other is not only anethema to the Constitution, but is a violation of eternal law as well.

Our agency is predicated on our ability to choose for ourselves. By arbitrarily silencing one side of the debate, pro-SSM advocates are striving to deny both present and future generations the information necessary to make informed choices.

I followed and agreed with you up to this point. What is the silencing? Technically, as a constitutional matter, "silencing" of views means the use of state power to do that. I suppose it could also mean criminal means (such as church-burning or lynching), but what do you mean by this?

The gays have every right in the world to "gnash their teeth" and say insulting and vulgar things and refuse to patronize. All that is legitimate and lawful and constitutionally protected, and is not "silencing."

It's like when USC football players descended on the LA temple during a gay march on it; they stood in front of the fence and issued obscenities and insults against the gay marchers to match those of the marchers. It was a sight to behold. I rather admired them. I wouldn't characterize the football players as "silencing".

Edited August 3, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[KevinG]

I followed and agreed with you up to this point. What is the silencing? Technically, as a constitutional matter, "silencing" of views means the use of state power to do that. I suppose it could also mean criminal means (such as church-burning or lynching), but what do you mean by this?

The gays have every right in the world to "gnash their teeth" and say insulting and vulgar things and refuse to patronize. All that is legitimate and lawful and constitutionally protected, and is not "silencing."

It's like when USC football players descended on the LA temple during a gay march on it; they stood in front of the fence and issued obscenities and insults against the gay marchers to match those of the marchers. It was a sight to behold. I rather admired them. I wouldn't characterize the football players as "silencing".

The mayors of New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco threatened the chain with not being able to do business in their cities. There was a bomb threat aimed at a West Virginia Chick-fil-a yesterday. We will see if all protests Friday are as peaceful and orderly as the appreciation day.

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[The Nehor]

We all have to go sometime.

I imagine death by Word of Wisdom violation is probably not the best way to go.

[selek1]

I followed and agreed with you up to this point. What is the silencing? Technically, as a constitutional matter, "silencing" of views means the use of state power to do that. I suppose it could also mean criminal means (such as church-burning or lynching), but what do you mean by this?

The gays have every right in the world to "gnash their teeth" and say insulting and vulgar things and refuse to patronize. All that is legitimate and lawful and constitutionally protected, and is not "silencing."

It's like when USC football players descended on the LA temple during a gay march on it; they stood in front of the fence and issued obscenities and insults against the gay marchers to match those of the marchers. It was a sight to behold. I wouldn't characterize the football players as "silencing".

No- I agree with you that- however profane and tumultuous- the exchange you described (with the qualifier of no physical violence or threats)- constitutes the free market place of ideas.

Defenders of the Cathy family (including myself) are not arguing that the statements by GLAAD, various other LGBT organizations, or even the threatened "kiss-in" are intrinsically wrong. In my estimation (and those of the others whom I've seen post here)- that is protected First Amendment activity.

The problem is when you have elected officials such as the Mayors of Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago threatening to either refuse to permit or selectively license these businesses based on the owners private religious views. And when you find Chicago city aldermen extorting favors and applying special conditions to the same.

Today, we find the statements, "No Irish Need Apply" and "No Jews" to be shocking and anachronistic.

Yet that is precisely the sentiment and intent of the threats Chick-Fil-A has received from these elected officials.

The Cathy Family, their business, their professional reputations, and their livelihood have been threatened by agents of the STATE because of their private religious views.

And that's every bit a blatant violation of the Constitution as a poll tax or religious test for public office.

[Bob Crockett]

The mayors of New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco threatened the chain with not being able to do business in their cities. There was a bomb threat aimed at a West Virginia Chick-fil-a yesterday. We will see if all protests Friday are as peaceful and orderly as the appreciation day.

Well, that is silencing. I think with their Wal-Mart battles they think they can push their authority even more than before.

So dang sad. I was so jaded by the Prop 8 fight here in California and changed party affiliations as a result. A lifetime Democrat now a Repulican.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[wenglund]

If you want see hypocrisy at its absolute worst in relation to this issue, and watch someone rattle off false cliché's (several that surfaced earlier on this thread) quicker than disclaimers at the end of radio commercials, though at full volume and bully-ish, then tune into a rebroadcast of tonight's Sean Hannity on Fox TV, the segment where Sean attempts to interact with an alleged civil rights leader/radio talk show host Leo Terrel along with Kimberly Guilfoyle. See if you don't come away with a clear sense of who really is the face of hate, Amazing!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 3, 2012 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

Well, that is silencing. I think with their Wal-Mart battles they think they can push their authority even more than before.

So dang sad. I was so jaded by the Prop 8 fight here in California and changed party affiliations as a result. A lifetime Democrat now a Repulican.

My son served his mission in Oakland during the Prop 8 fight. I'd just watch on the news in Utah and saw the picketers outside the temple. I feared for my son especially where he stood out, as representing the church with the missionary nametag. But they were allowed to go to the temple and stand with the picketers that stood for prop 8. It was quite the night for him.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Tacenda

[Zakuska]

Another good article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chick-fil-a-kiss-in-20120802,0,3873417.story

Nationwide, at least 15,000 people have agreed to participate in the kiss-in, McGehee said. But even among LGBT supporters, some wonder whether such an in-your-face act might be too provocative, or amount to taunting.

"I respect not patronizing their establishment ... but by taunting them in their establishment is hate-filled and inciting anger and hate," said one commenter on a Causes.com page urging people to participate in the kiss-in.

Suggested another: "Its okay to disagree but its not okay to confront a person on their views in such an aggressive and provocative manner. There are forums for that."

McGehee told the Los Angeles Times that she encouraged participants to be "polite and tasteful."

"This is about us showing our love.... We're not encouraging people to be outrageous or lewd."

She said the protest was less about trying to change the minds of people who are offended by LGBT love, and more about encouraging young people who are frightened to embrace their sexual orientation. "We want to tell young people, you are OK just the way you are."

For its part, Chick-fil-A said it would not comment further beyond its statement about Wednesday's sales setting a record.

As for Friday's protests, the company says it's ready: "We understand from news reports that Friday may present yet another opportunity for us to serve with genuine hospitality, superior service and great food."

[Zakuska]

This was a refreshingly unbiased article, this part actually reported the situation correctly.

But by far the largest such food-related “buycott” was Chick-fil-A’s, sparked by President Dan Cathy’s remarks to a religious publication about his support for the “Biblical definition” of marriage. Gay rights groups called for a boycott, and Cathy’s supporters pledged to bring business to Chick-fil-A en masse.

http://bottomline.nb...n-movement?lite

No mention of Cathy's remarks as being "Anti-Gay", in fact if you listen to the radio-show linked earlier his remarks were anything but Anti-Gay. He was asked if he supported the Bible definition of marriage and he answered in the affirmative.

Whats funny is the gay community getting all up in arms about this. By doing so, they got just the opposite reaction than what they wanted. They caused a run on Chick-Fil-A, which poured in millions of dollars into the company's coffers, which gives Chick-Fil-A more money to donate to its "anti-Gay agenda".

DOH!

Edited August 3, 2012 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Now for some fun... Comic strips of the situation:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/48469697/displaymode/1247?beginSlide=1

[wenglund]

Here is the youtube video of former civil rights leader, Leo Terrel, and his meltdown on Hannity last night over the CFA controvery;

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qFBufN5taMg

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 3, 2012 by wenglund