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

[california boy]

No, I even responded to it. I think you missed some post. You are puzzling me, cb.

sorry I didn't see your response. I have responded

[Libs]

So, what you're saying is that unless you are an ordained preacher and speaking from the pulpit you're not allowed to talk about God and what you believe God is concerned with?

And more to the point, you're not even being self-consistent, Libs. You just said he could preach it in the church to believers, but he shouldn't bring it to a secular audience -- when that's exactly what he did!!!! He did not issue a general press release, ex cathedra, as Chik-fil-A chairman, but merely expressed those views during an interview with a reporter of a church publication, to believers.

It is the professional and hobbyist hate-mongers who picked up on it and in great indignation trumpeted it to the secular world. This is because they cannot bear it that something they disagree with be expressed, even in some obscure religious publication that maybe ten or twenty thousand people actually read. I don't know what their circulation is, actually, but that's not the point.

Let me repeat myself: Mr. Cathy did not call a press conference and regale us all with his opinion about what God thinks of the efforts in this country to push SSM. He expressed his religious opinion in a magazine devoted to religious subject matter -- and did so in a publication which by and large agrees with his views.

Selek1 said it first, but I must agree: whether you intend it or not, you are dangerously close to advocating for the abolition of press-freedom, not to mention freedom of religion, when you forbd a citizen from expressing an opinion you disagree with.

Not at all, Stargazer. You, like selek, are mistaking my opinion for wanting to censor someone. It is my opinion that he should not have said that on public radio (no matter the venue). I am not saying I want to make it illegal or censor him in any way. I am suggesting that what he did was not wise, and he brought a lot of this criticism on himself, for saying such things in a very public venue.

[selek1]

Oh, good grief, selek...again you are accusing me of trying to censor someone, just because I find what he did to be...lacking in thought.

No- you stated that he should not/could not "bring his opinion" to a secular audience.

There's a deep and profound difference between "I disagree" and "You can't say that."

By saying "don't bring it to a secular audience" (a false and scurrilous charge in any event) you are engaging in the latter.

Dan Cathy did (IMO) pick this fight.

The facts say differently.

Dan Cathy was content to run his business according to his own religious principles. He did not attempt to impose his view on others.

Dan Cathy was content to donate generously to organizations which supported his religious beliefs and served the community. He did not demand that others do the same.

For those heinous sins, the GLBT lobby began a media campaign and announced a boycott against his company well over a year before the "inflammatory" comments were made.

Just recently, Dan Cathy was asked about his religious beliefs on a religious program.

Because he spoke the truth (as he sees it), the GLBT lobby launched a vicious slur campaign and several Leftist politicians (ever eager to pander in order to buy votes and line their own pockets) threatened his family and his business because he was foolish enough to answer honestly.

Dan Cathy and his company were quietly minding thier own business- harming no one.

But that was too much to ask for the LGBT radicals.

THEY picked this fight, not Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A.

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[Stargazer]

The mayor of Boston said that CFA was not welcome in Boston and does not share the same values of not discriminating against the people of this city. He has not yet at this point turned down any license based on what Cathy said. If you think he has you are going to have to give a reference. No one has been denied a business license. At this point it is just talk. And like I said, the politician who makes such comments are WRONG.

A reference has been given -- though not by me. It's a few posts above this one. Here's a quote from one of the links:

After Rahm made his statement, Alderman Proco Joe Moreno indicated that he would block any attempt of Chick-fil-A to open a second store because of the statement made by Dan Cathy, son of Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A. There has been no report that Rahm and Moreno intends to close down the hundreds of churches and other businesses in Chicago who agrees with the Cathy statement.

Perhaps a business license denial has not yet occurred -- and if not I stand corrected -- but the threat has been made, and absent the current controversy might very well have been carried out.

[california boy]

A reference has been given -- though not by me. It's a few posts above this one. Here's a quote from one of the links:

Perhaps a business license denial has not yet occurred -- and if not I stand corrected -- but the threat has been made, and absent the current controversy might very well have been carried out.

The THREAT has been made. The legal department of the city has not expressed the legality of the action. I personally would fight for his right to open a business in Boston or wherever else. As long as a person is not discriminating, obeying the law and meeting zoning requirements they should get a license. I doubt that I would ever eat there because I am not willing to support an organization that is fighting to deny me or anyone elses civil rights.

[Stargazer]

I did read your link. I guess I don't understand your point. I don't think this kind of logic works either. If you acknowledge that both sides, left and right use this tatic, then what is your point?

Sigh. My point is not that both sides use a certain logical fallacy from time to time in attempting to bolster their positions. So what? It's a "commonplace" -- something that everyone can agree on without much in the way of quibbling about it. Can we please get past this obvious and evident fact?

My point is simply to point out that the Left is trying to pillory the chairman of Chik-fil-A and his company as anti-gay, when all he said was that he feared the judgments of God for the attempts by people to redefine marriage. Which pillorying is an egregious example of the logical fallacy of "Affirming the Consequent". And, just incidentally, absent actual evidence that Cathy hates gays or is anti-gay, this shows clearly that all this bloviating is a pack of lies and innuendo.

If you still don't get it, then I give up.

[Stargazer]

The THREAT has been made. The legal department of the city has not expressed the legality of the action. I personally would fight for his right to open a business in Boston or wherever else. As long as a person is not discriminating, obeying the law and meeting zoning requirements they should get a license. I doubt that I would ever eat there because I am not willing to support an organization that is fighting to deny me or anyone elses civil rights.

Well, fine, but your opinion on what constitutes a "civil right" aside, I haven't yet seen evidence that CFA actually contributes any kind of support to organizations working to oppose SSM. I've heard a lot of hearsay about that, but that's all. Besides, it might be that CFA as a company does not such thing, but its chairman might, as a private citizen. And I guess since he earns his living from CFA that means that indirectly you're supporting anti-SSM if you buy food from CFA. Much like I would be supporting socialism if I bought Ben and Jerry ice cream. Or whatever else.

This whole thing is making me tired. I'm going to bed. Goodnite!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Because they are selling lots of food. Do you think that these guys making a lot of money over this are the victims of their religious freedom being curtailed?

The "anti" side are the ones who want to deny the right of same-sex couples to get married. That is the anti side because they are the ones who are opposing same sex marriage. Have you read The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage? People who defend conservative values support gay marriage; that is clearly the positive side of the debate.

"Some", not most...your final sentence is incorrect. Edited August 4, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[KevinG]

That doesn't erase the negative statements about same sex marriage,

The "negative statements" no one has quoted in multiple CFRs? Defending traditional marriage is not the same as negative statements about gays.

What would you think of this man, if he were talking about polygamy in Joseph Smith's day?

That he had a time machine.

Or if he had singled Mormons out (as many Ev's do) as being the cause of bringing God's judgment on this nation? Seriously, would you then be defending him? His right to say it, yes, but the content?? I doubt it. I hope not. I wouldn't, if he were saying these things about Mormons or any other group of people. I have defended Mormonism on other boards, many, many times, when people say exactly this kind of thing.

But he hasn't. I've defended the rights of gays to enjoy the same civil rights as any other citizen up to and including visitation rights, financial rights and benefits. I jsut don't think the government should be in the business of redefining marriage for religious institutions and the state.

I can accept that people are against change and do not like the idea of same sex marriage, but some rhetoric is a LOT more inflammatory and unnecessarily divisive than others.

Again you are characterizing Dan Cathy's comments as inflammatory and unnecessary when they were relatively mild and included all types of marriage and family issues. the response to try to shut down and shut out the business he runs was reactionary and over the top.

The guy who rode through Chik-fil-a and tried to shame that young girl is a very good example of poor rhetoric on the supportive side of ss marriage. But, I think this one statement of Cathy's is no better, and perhaps much worse. And, yet, it is defended by the very same people who are crying out against the drive-thru dude, and calling him "hateful". I see a very huge double standard here...sorry, but I do.

Tu quoque as predicted.

[KevinG]

dup

Edited August 4, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

What do you think he is talking about in this quote, selek (and please knock off the verbal abuse)..

“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.”

What EXACTLY is he talking about here, if not same sex marriage...and who do you think would participate in same sex marriage? Heterosexuals??

Quote the question he was asked and the broader context. It will be educational. I posted the video twice now. You can do it.

[KevinG]

Hate speech is protected (which is why you see the Westboro gang all over the place with their signs).

I belong to the group who fought against McCarthyism and there are a lot of those folks still out there.

You sure like walking right up to the edge of Godwin territory.

By your standards for Dan Cathy's remarks comparing his comments to Westboro and McCarthy you must be coming from a place of hate.

[KevinG]

The question put to Dan Cathy was about "he crisis of fatherlessness" not gay marriage.

[media=]

I found the following quotes from the interview with the Biblical Recorder.

"We don't claim to be a Christian business," Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, "There is no such thing as a Christian business."

"That got my attention," Cathy said. Roach went on to say, "Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me."

"In that spirit ... [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are," Cathy added.

"But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us."

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Edited August 4, 2012 by KevinG

[Storm Rider]

It is pretty amazing when a society begins to turn logic on its head; calling black, white, and white, black; right is wrong and wrong is right. How many societies in history have survived when morals were completely abandoned in order that all passions could be enjoyed by its citizens. Doing these things is the very height of arrogance and epitomizes a society that has abandoned God and his teachings in order for "personal" rights i.e. individual passions, have complete control.

What are the rights of the community? Does a community have any rights anymore? When should community rights trump individual rights?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The "negative statements" no one has quoted in multiple CFRs?

Defending marriage is a positive thing.

[Carborendum]

In CA, way back when "Prop 8" was "Prop 22", my MIL said that legalizing SSM will open the flood gates to (evil).

At the time, I really didn't make the connection. I was rather ambivalent about it. I was of the libertarian mindset that if we just took govt out of marriage entirely, there wouldn't be a problem.

I'm still not sure if she had any revelatory backing for her statement. But for the past few years, I've seen too many instances where sexual morality is concerned, there are simply too many instances of religious rights being diminished. And too many instances of religious percecution in general.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Carborendum

[ERayR]

Your comments to Lib is only making you look small. She has answered your question enough times that you are starting to deserve an uncivil answer. Quit bating Libs. Neither side thinks that Cathy was not addressing gays. Move on, or is this incredibly silly question the only one you got?

He does NOT directly reference homosexuals. Yes by inference one could assume that, and he probably was, but other inferences could be made. However stating that God's wrath will be visited on America for condoning whatever he is inferring is not hate speech. The hate speech label is used as club to silence and subdue those with alternate views and to me it is the ultimate hate speech. The label "hate speech" should be used with caution and only after careful deliberation.

[wenglund]

Do you think that christians that support gay marriage are anti family.

If I hac made a statement even remotely suggesting this, then I could understand your asking me this. I haven't. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth and stop deflecting attention away from my salient questions with your manufactured equivolencies.

Are christians supporting gay marriage also trying to destroy family values? Are christians that support gay marriage also attacking freedom of religion.

Again, if I hac made a statement even remotely suggesting this, then I could understand your asking me this. I haven't. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth and stop deflecting attention away from my salient questions with your manufactured equivolencies.

There are a heck of a lot of christians that support gay marriage in this country.

I didn't suggest otherwise. Ask your questions to whomever did--if anyone.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

I belong to the group who fought against McCarthyism and there are a lot of those folks still out there.

I belong to a group who opposes ssm and believes that God's judgements will come on us as a people because of the choices of our citizens. Do you consider me as indulging in "hate" speech? Do you, on the basis of that information, consider me a hater?

[Sleeper Cell]

The hate speech label is used as club to silence and subdue those with alternate views and to me it is the ultimate hate speech. The label "hate speech" should be used with caution and only after careful deliberation.

Furthermore, using a phrase like “hate speech” as a rhetorical weapon to silence your critics will eventually diminish its impact and eventually rob it of its meaning. And when you encounter real hate speech, what will you call it to differentiate it from “an opinion with which your strongly disagree?“ Sort of analogous to the “boy who cried wolf.”

[Calm]

This is just the first site that came up quoting the interview, I have no clue about the quality of the site (and someone else may have already posted this, I've lost track, but I don't remember anyone saying anything about the interview having taken place on Father's Day which I think is an important factor in the subject of the interview):

.

Since the interview was given on Father’s Day, the emphasis was on fathers. The radio host chose to feature Dan Cathy, a father of two and prominent Christian businessman who has honored his own father and has followed in his footsteps. Mr. Coleman simply asked Dan to comment on our “fatherless” society and what could be done to solve the problem. Dan elaborated on how emotionally detrimental it can be when the father or mother is absent from the family and how fatherless children do not get the benefit of the balance between both parents. He mentioned an “essential, emotional DNA” that we get as a result of having a balanced family....

Ken Coleman: As you look at the crisis of fatherlessness that we have in this country — I wanted you to weigh in on that. I think it’s important for us to hear from you. What can we be doing as a country to be focusing on this growing problem?

Dan Cathy: As an employer first off, just from that perspective, I see it’s a real crisis in the sense that there is a certain amount of emotional DNA – there’s physical DNA obviously that comes from the dad and also from the mom – but beyond that, there’s some essential emotional DNA that God intended for us to get from a mother and a dad that we observe over life as children and infancy and growing up that we can only get from our dad, and we only get it from our mom, and we’re to get it in a home dynamic environment where they’re interrelating together to build the stability and the self-esteem that God wants us to have to get through our teenage years. Now, when we don’t have one side or the other, you know, I just have to tell you, I think we’re just emotionally handicapped. It’s doesn’t mean we can’t survive and have a happy life, but it means we’re going to have some odds stacked against us, and hopefully there could be somebody that intervenes to help make that up for us. But to have so many people today that are growing up in homes where they don’t have a mom and dad – I’ll tell you, as an employer, it makes it that much more difficult for us because we sometimes actually have to have a parenting role. As it relates to society in general, I think we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him as 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 — to think that we would — the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.

http://godfatherpoli...nother-scandal/

This site has a link to the interview and the time of the quote:

The whole Dan Cathy interview starts around 21:28, and the part quoted above starts at 29:43. Cathy was a guest on the Ken Coleman Show (never heard of it…) on Father’s Day weekend, talking about his Dad, and his own marriage of 40-plus years to his one wife, and the benefits of a Mom-and-Dad, stable family. Listen:

http://gregshead.net/ Edited August 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

I belong to a group who opposes ssm and believes that God's judgements will come on us as a people because of the choices of our citizens. Do you consider me as indulging in "hate" speech? Do you, on the basis of that information, consider me a hater?

Libs mentioned earlier in the thread that the word "hate" was being tossed around too much by both sides. So, I am interested to see how she answers your questions.

To me, certain parties are tossing the word around because their positions aren't rationally convincing, which leaves them to reosrt to emotional appeals, even if strained beyond credulity. By labeling opposing people or statements as "hateful," even though in a reasonable sense they aren't, opponents may easily be dismissed with prejudice and without being engaged.

The good news is, people are now being called on it, and the propagandistic ploy is being exposed for the lame fallcy that it is. And, with the exception of the uncritically-minded and overly emotive, people are no longer buying it. [thumbs up]

To tell the difference between real and self-identified hate and non-hate, one need but juxtapose Mr. Terrel's meltdown on Hannity (linked earlier) with Cathy's radio interview. There is no comparison. Yet, from what I can tell of Lib, she sees it quite the opposite, though I hope I am wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

You sure like walking right up to the edge of Godwin territory.

By your standards for Dan Cathy's remarks comparing his comments to Westboro and McCarthy you must be coming from a place of hate.

Oh please. I never did any such thing. You have completely taken my comments out of context.

I am leaving this discussion. It has gotten completely ridiculous.

[selek1]

I am leaving this discussion. It has gotten completely ridiculous.

Not surprising- It's far easier to play the victim than to substantiate your arguments.

You have spent the entire thread bleating about how mean everyone else is, how "hateful" and "inappropriate" Dan Cathy's comments were- without answering a single CFR or acknowledging that you are engaged in exactly the same behavior you are condemning.

You want to smear and dismiss Dan Cathy as a bully- without acknowledging that your litany of complaints against him is every bit as biased, as unfounded, and as hurtful as you claim his to be.

You argue that his invocation of God's wrath for man's chutzpah is self-righteous and presumptuous.

How is your pretense that God disagrees with him any less self-righteous and presumptuous?

You argue that Dan Cathy is "hateful" and "anti-gay" because he opposes the as-yet-unaffirmed "right" to gay marriage.

How is your attempt to restrict his Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion to venues and audiences of whom you approve any less offensive?

You claim that his comments were "offensive" and "demeaning" because they do not accurately represent the attitudes and goals of the pro-SSM movement.

How are your deliberate, willful, and repeated mispresentations of Dan Cathy's comments and positions any less egregious than his?

And the tu quoque fallacies were becoming dreadfully predictable.

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

Oh please. I never did any such thing. You have completely taken my comments out of context.

I am leaving this discussion. It has gotten completely ridiculous.

Before you leave could you please respond to my post #469.

Thank you.