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

[GingerRed]

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.c...bed/qFBufN5taMg

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

:shok: !!!!

[wenglund]

:shok: !!!!

I know. Astonishing. This issue, like few others, is causing the masks of certain Leftists to slip and reveal the true face of hatred and bigotry and civil rights violations. Clearly, Mr. Terrel is in such deep denial and faux self-righteous indignation that I doubt he will ever be able to see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

"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."

Classy and consistent with Chick-fil-a practice, views and policy throughout the history of their chain.

The contrast between the accused "haters" and the self-proclaimed "lovers" is instructive.

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

I failed to see how the "Bible" was being used to discriminate against Gay people, all Cathy said was he agreed with how the Bible defines marriage. Now if Cathy was baring gays from eating in his establisment because they didn't follow the Bibilical definition of marriage, Mr Turrel-self-righteous-DB might have a point. That would be discrimination against gays.

This is clearly a first amendment issue plain and simple.

[Libs]

I don't think the guy was denying Mr. Cathy his first amendment right to say whatever he wants. He was trying to point out that the Bible is used (and has been used for eons) to discriminate against groups of people. He is correct on that (but, really, should have tried to keep his cool a little better).

Fox News. Ugh.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Libs

[CV75]

I think we all ought to go to Chick-fil-A and kiss our spouses and children. A Kiss-In!

...and grandchildren, and all sorts of relatives... same-sex "marriage" supporters included! Except I would only kiss the latter with Chick-fil-A on my breath.

Edited August 3, 2012 by CV75

[KevinG]

I don't think the guy was denying Mr. Cathy his first amendment right to say whatever he wants. He was trying to point out that the Bible is used (and has been used for eons) to discriminate against groups of people. He is correct on that (but, really, should have tried to keep his cool a little better).

Fox News. Ugh.

One more time Libs. Outside of your distaste for new outlets that actually show both sides of an issue...

What was it that Dan Cathy said that was anti-gay? What part of the Bible did he use to discriminate against gays? What discriminatory actions has Chick-fil-a taken against gays? This whole "controversy" is made up from dog whistles, imagined slights and whole cloth lies.

Source materials please or withdraw you accusations or endorsement of Leo Terrels comments.

Here is your source material to get you started:

http://www.chick-fil.../Press-Releases

http://winshape.com/

[media=]

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[Libs]

What was it that Dan Cathy said that was anti-gay. What part of the Bible did he use to discriminate against gays. What discriminatory actions has Chick-fil-a taken against gays.

His opposition to SS marriage is most definitely considered discriminatory by those who are fighting for marriage rights. That seems rather obvious. No one is accusing him of discriminating against gays in his business dealings (that I know of).

[wenglund]

I don't think the guy was denying Mr. Cathy his first amendment right to say whatever he wants. He was trying to point out that the Bible is used (and has been used for eons) to discriminate against groups of people. He is correct on that (but, really, should have tried to keep his cool a little better).

I think you may be suffering from a bit of denial, yourself. Mr. Terrel clearly expressed hatred towards, and bizarrely and ironically classified a hateful, people who hold to traditional marriage--particularly those who reasonably do so based on the Bible. This is hypocritical bigotry in its most insidious form, and is beginning to manifest itself by way of illegitimate denials of business licenses and statements by certain politicians that people who hold to traditional marriage are not welcome in their city--as if the mayor speak for the entire city. This isn't just people disagreeing with each other, but one side attempting to silence and censor the other side--which can rightly be interpreted as a first amendment infringement. Mr. Terrel may not have overtly said as much, but his deflections when pressed on the matter suggest condoning at best and complicity at worst.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

I think the accusation of "hate" is being thrown around rather loosely on both sides.

[KevinG]

His opposition to SS marriage is most definitely considered discriminatory by those who are fighting for marriage rights. That seems rather obvious. No one is accusing him of discriminating against gays in his business dealings (that I know of).

So espousing the virtues of having a mother and father in the home is "anti-gay"? (Or are you responding without checking the source materials?)

You must take great offense at this document: http://www.lds.org/t...mation?lang=eng

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I think the accusation of "hate" is being thrown around rather loosely on both sides.

If you drew a venn diagram Trying to deny people their right to expression and ban them from opening a business would be in the intersection of hate and intolerance.

[wenglund]

His opposition to SS marriage is most definitely considered discriminatory by those who are fighting for marriage rights. That seems rather obvious. No one is accusing him of discriminating against gays in his business dealings (that I know of).

This is like suggesting that people who are against extending marital sanctions to children of minority age, are "anti-Child." Nonsense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think the accusation of "hate" is being thrown around rather loosely on both sides.

Not by me. Mr. Terrel was the one who explicitly declared his own hate. I took him at his word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

So espousing the virtues of having a mother and father in the home is "anti-gay"?

I never said that and neither did Mr. Terrel. I'm not going to go fifteen rounds on this issue, again. The differences, in opinion, are very clear...or should be, at this point. Those who support SS marriage, believe they are being discriminated against, based on things written in the Bible (rather than our U.S. Constitution). I wouldn't call it "hateful", but I understand why some feel that it is.

You must take great offense at this document: http://www.lds.org/t...mation?lang=eng

And, why would you think that? Seriously? I support traditional marriage, between a man and a woman. I also support same sex marriage. I see no contradiction in that. Families of all kinds need support...not just traditional families.

[KevinG]

I'm not going to go fifteen rounds on this issue, again.

I'd be happy if someone answered the question I posed in the first round. You are still avoiding addressing Dan Cathys actual statements. Have you listened to them yet?

And, why would you think that? Seriously?

Because what Dan Cathy said about marriage in the controversial interview was very, very similar to the Proclamation on the family. And the proclamation reaffirms our purpose as male and female. In fact it is more explicit than Dan Cathy's remarks. If you find his position and remarks intolerant of offensive you should certainly find the church stance on marriage intolerant of offensive.

Lets boil it down to make it simple. Listen to Dan's comments and tell me what makes them "anti-gay" any more than the Proclamation on the family? Then we can speak to the issue and not spout generalizations to justify hasty accusations.

I support traditional marriage, between a man and a woman.

And that right there puts you in the same group as Dan Cathy according to the civil rights activist on Fox. "Traditional" is code for Biblical which of course has been used to oppress people.

(I don't really believe that illogic but if it works for Dan Cathy why not you?)

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[Perrytheplatypus]

I went to my local Chik-Fil-A here in Sandy Utah. Felt good to see the support of free speech, freedom of religion, whatever you wanna call it. I guess this is just the Sign of the times. I don't even think this would be an issue even 10-15 years ago. Did anyone hear about the guy that went through the drive through. ordered free water. and then chewed out the cashier. Saying she should be ashamed of herself for working there?

[KevinG]

I went to my local Chik-Fil-A here in Sandy Utah. Felt good to see the support of free speech, freedom of religion, whatever you wanna call it. I guess this is just the Sign of the times. I don't even think this would be an issue even 10-15 years ago. Did anyone hear about the guy that went through the drive through. ordered free water. and then chewed out the cashier. Saying she should be ashamed of herself for working there?

Someone posted that video earlier. Full of love and tolerance he was.

Her response by the way was "it is my pleasure to serve you". She was a bit rattled by his continued diatribe but never failed to tell him his business and everyone elses was always welcome at Chick-fil-a.

UPDATE: It seems as though Mr. Smith who harassed the poor Chick-fil-a team member got fired from his job for acting in a way not consistent with the values of his company. His company released him from his CFO position with this statement:

Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.

The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith's actions against Vante and its employees. http://www.marketwat...-cfo-2012-08-02

[GingerRed]

Someone posted that video earlier. Full of love and tolerance he was.

Her response by the way was "it is my pleasure to serve you". She was a bit rattled by his continued diatribe but never failed to tell him his business and everyone elses was always welcome at Chick-fil-a.

UPDATE: It seems as though Mr. Smith who harassed the poor Chick-fil-a team member got fired from his job for acting in a way not consistent with the values of his company. His company released him from his CFO position with this statement:

Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.

The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith's actions against Vante and its employees. http://www.marketwat...-cfo-2012-08-02

YES!!

Red

[Libs]

I'd be happy if someone answered the question I posed in the first round. You are still avoiding addressing Dan Cathys actual statements. Have you listened to them yet?

Yes, I have. Several times...plus, other comments that started this whole debate, like his radio interview, where he is claiming that God is judging this nation, because of its' acceptance of same sex marriage.

It’s not every day that the leader of a big business steps into a national debate that has the potential to offend many of its customers.

But Dan Cathy, president of the popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A, has done just that, saying on a radio show that “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

edit: meant to include the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/chick-fil-a-president-dan-cathy-bites-into-gay-marriage-debate/2012/07/19/gJQACrvzvW_blog.html

I hope anyone would understand that he is inviting criticism, during these times of controversy, over the issue of ss marriage, even accusations of hatred, when he puts out these kinds of judgmental statements. He is most certainly entitled to his opinion, but freedom of speech works in all directions, so people are entitled to criticize his stance and even consider it "hateful", if that is what they believe.

Because what Dan Cathy said about marriage in the controversial interview was very, very similar to the Proclamation on the family. And the proclamation reaffirms our purpose as male and female. In fact it is more explicit than Dan Cathy's remarks. If you find his position and remarks intolerant of offensive you should certainly find the church stance on marriage intolerant of offensive.

Lets boil it down to make it simple. Listen to Dan's comments and tell me what makes them "anti-gay" any more than the Proclamation on the family? Then we can speak to the issue and not spout generalizations to justify hasty accusations.

It is not support of the traditional family that is considered "anti-gay". It is the non-support of ss marriage and their families, that is considered anti-gay. I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. I think the way Hannity and some have tried to frame the questions, is a sort of game playing. He knows the issue and he knows very well what it is that is considered unacceptable by those who support ss marriage.

And that right there puts you in the same group as Dan Cathy according to the civil rights activist on Fox. "Traditional" is code for Biblical which of course has been used to oppress people.

Traditional, to me, simply means the way marriage has traditionally been defined by our culture. I don't see supporting ss marriage as breaking with "tradition", at all. I'm not advocating throwing out traditional marriage. I see it as simply expanding the definition to include families which have, thus far, been excluded under that definition. Not any different than when we finally included interracial marriages under the umbrella of "traditional marriages".

Edited August 3, 2012 by Libs

[ERayR]

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.c...bed/qFBufN5taMg

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How ironic, he kept saying he hated anybody using the bible to discriminate but that was exactly what he was doing. In reverse.

[ERayR]

Fox News. Ugh.

What have you got against expanding your horizons?

[ERayR]

I never said that and neither did Mr. Terrel. I'm not going to go fifteen rounds on this issue, again. The differences, in opinion, are very clear...or should be, at this point. Those who support SS marriage, believe they are being discriminated against, based on things written in the Bible (rather than our U.S. Constitution). I wouldn't call it "hateful", but I understand why some feel that it is.

And, why would you think that? Seriously? I support traditional marriage, between a man and a woman. I also support same sex marriage. I see no contradiction in that. Families of all kinds need support...not just traditional families.

The differences of opinion are very clear. Mr Terrel defiantly said that to express the opinion that marriage should be between was anti-gay hate speech and should be censored. Do you really agree with that?

[Zakuska]

I think we'll be seeing some lawsuits on that one. Mr. Smith seems like the type of person who would bring a lawsuit claiming he was doing it on his own time on his commute to work. But hey... Athletes are having issues with their social media, people are being fired for what they put on their facebook accounts.

[ERayR]

Someone posted that video earlier. Full of love and tolerance he was.

Her response by the way was "it is my pleasure to serve you". She was a bit rattled by his continued diatribe but never failed to tell him his business and everyone elses was always welcome at Chick-fil-a.

UPDATE: It seems as though Mr. Smith who harassed the poor Chick-fil-a team member got fired from his job for acting in a way not consistent with the values of his company. His company released him from his CFO position with this statement:

Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.

The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith's actions against Vante and its employees. http://www.marketwat...-cfo-2012-08-02

I am sorry Mr. Smiths intolerance cost him his job. It places a hardship on him and his family.