Chick-fil-A and its Support of "Traditional Marriage" (A.K.A. - Against Gay Marriage)

[ignoranceisn'tbliss]

I personally think people should stop complaining about the Owners actions and try get rid of it at the source - the hate organisations the owner supports.

I think that the whole boycotting thing is actually a step toward getting rid of the "source." The way I see it, these organizations are partially (or maybe entirely) supported by the money they receive from companies like Chick-fil-A. By withdrawing the money put into companies by boycotting, the company would then need to cease supporting the organizations in order to sustain itself and bring back customers.

I think the real "source" is the general attitude most people have. That's what causes anti-gay organizations to spring up. And people are doing something about that. It doesn't mean they can't attempt a boycott at the same time. Just sayin'.

- I don't understand this concept that conservative Christians are being persecuted and must defend themselves by rallying behind a waffle fry. Side note: See this page for an entertaining commentary: http://www.stuffchristianculturelikes.com/2011/02/209-perceiving-persecution.html

I wish waffle fries were more common :(

This is pretty much why I stopped going to Church. Christianity just isn't Christian enough. I saw a picture of a bus-full of people... I'm presuming they were all conservative Christians... smiling and holding up Chik-Fil-A cups, and I thought... do you know how smug you guys look? Don't pat yourself on the back. You're not standing up for your beliefs.

Actually, I think they are standing up for their beliefs (even if I don't agree with them). What they aren't standing up for is your belief. They're standing up for the belief that gay people shouldn't be married. You're examples of people standing up for beliefs (which I cut out of this quote...woops) are about people standing up for the belief that people should follow certain attitudes, behaviors, etc. Two differently beliefs, both groups standing up for them. One has to suffer for their belief while the other doesn't. This is why I personally think religion (in the sense that multiple people belong to one clearly defined group) shouldn't exist because there are far too many differences in peoples beliefs even among the same sect/denomination.

[runester]

Personally, I'll never eat there again.

The fact that their "beliefs" came out under the gay rights umbrella is irrelevant to me (thought I admit it caught my attention pretty quickly). What IS relevant is that it's hate mongering (in my eyes). If they want to believe that some people have less of a right because of their sexuality, their gender, their disabilities, their abilities, their hair color, eye color, skin color, they're bald... It's all the same. They're being hateful and that's not okay to me.

I'm in no way religious, but I'm spiritual and I fully and 100% believe in The Golden Rule. Just because you're a straight white, white-collar man does not mean you get to lord over anyone else and tell them what they can and cannot do. That's not okay. He wouldn't like it if it was done to his daughter or son, or to his father or grandfather, or to himself so he shouldn't do it to other people (I'm using "he" as the CEO of Chick-Fil-A but I mean it in a general sense... We're just talking about the restaurant, and I know they're not refusing to serve people).

It's a personal choice, and I personally feel that I would be standing against some of my best friends whom I consider siblings if I ate there.

An interesting post "Lia" - thank you!! :)

[inactive]

when this story first "broke" my opinion was, "oh well, just another reason not to eat there." it gives me a stomach ache. i don't like the way the media has been pushing this, because, as another poster mentioned, it's bringing the bigots out in force. anyway, this is what i'm getting at... i LOVE TEDtalks and i watch the videos on youtube all the time. this is a great video on

... i always knew that i wasn't against gay marriage, but my god! this puts it into a perspective that all these "don't stomp on my constitution" liars keep screaming about. they don't care one bit about the constitution. they just care about what they want and to hell with everybody else. people also need to stop blaming their hatred on christianity. it's sickening. jesus would slap the crap out of all of them. at least i like to think so. that's what he's supposed to do to the sinners when he comes back again, right? but anyhoo... i think you'll enjoy the video very much. i hope you'll watch it. check out some other good talks at TEDtalks when you're done watching this one.

[ignoranceisn'tbliss]

people also need to stop blaming their hatred on christianity.

While I agree it's no fault of Christianity as a whole, and I don't think people should take it out on the group as a whole, there are strong ties between anti-gay activism and Christianity. This is most obviously brought up by the often mentioned point that there is no argument against gay people in any way that doesn't have some religious (and usually Christian, in the US at least) connection. So I definitely think people do have a right to be angry at certain groups among Christianity, but not the religion as a whole.

[Medulla Oblongata]

I think the entire Chick-Fil-A fiasco is distasteful, but overblown and stupid. I buy fuel for my car, which lines the pockets of governments on the other side of the world - governments that put people to death for performing same-sex acts. I don't like Chick-Fil-A putting my money toward anti-gay groups, but my money's already going to beheading someone I don't even know. :(

I just do my part to try to help others. I know I can't change everything, but I can try to help make the world a better place <3

[wulfgar83]

I havent eatten there since i found out theyre against gay marriage. Simple as that.

[Karl Viktor]

I find it incredibly funny and unbelievably scary that american politics is commercialized to the degree that a fast-food restaurants decide it's a good idea to approve or disapprove of same-sex marriage.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

I find it incredibly funny and unbelievably scary that american politics is commercialized to the degree that a fast-food restaurants decide it's a good idea to approve or disapprove of same-sex marriage.

I agree, I thought businesses were about profits, not politics.

[runester]

I find it incredibly funny and unbelievably scary that american politics is commercialized to the degree that a fast-food restaurants decide it's a good idea to approve or disapprove of same-sex marriage.

I agree, I thought businesses were about profits, not politics.

Sadly, in an election-year, they are about both.

[snufflebottoms]

To me, being against gay marriage should be as taboo as being against interracial marriage. This is a basic civil rights issue, not a matter of opinion. And it goes beyond simply politics.

A semi-brief comment on the topic of gay rights:

To address the common arguments for why gay people are a "special case" that does not deserve equal rights:

People say it's unnatural, even though we don't use that line of reasoning to be against technology and other unnatural things. It's not even unnatural. It is less common, but homosexuality is seen throughout nature, from many species. People say it's a choice (when it's not) but even if it was, other non-detrimental choices are celebrated, not outlawed by society (as they should be). People worry that gays will take in children and corrupt them. But while not all gay parents are good parents, many give homes to those who need homes, providing them with love and a tolerant upbringing. There is no evidence that gay families are more likely to be damaging than straight ones. Lastly, People ask where do we draw the line? What about bestiality what about incest what about pedophilia?

The line is clear: consenting adults. Animals have sex with each other and we can't really know if it is consensual or if it's "rape" or if they suffer from being "taken advantage of." People do suffer if they don't consent (whether raped by a person or attacked by an animal.) Animals cannot consent in the way people can, an inter-species sex can harm both parties physically. People can easily choose not to have sex with animals. Children who wish to marry or have sex need only wait. So even if a 16 year old really is ready, he or she is simply in a temporary situation, which serves to protect others who aren't ready from having to defend their right to childhood. Incest between two adults is a special case because reproduction (which is likely in a sexual marriage) between close relative over time is bad for society. This is why most people feel repulsed by the thought and that is the evolutionary reason we have that attitude. (Royal people had some real troubles with that shit.) Morally, it might seem to cross the family bond line, like how dating your boss can lead to problems. But that is another topic. These three cases are not like homosexuals, where the only different is the gender of the parties involved.

Also, if gay marriage allows for fraud of benefits, so does straight marriage and green-card granting marriage. Taking away civil rights to prevent fraud is an awful thing.

It is not okay to have a different opinion when it comes to civil rights. It is not okay to have organizations trying to remove civil rights from society. This is a case where we do not need to tolerate intolerance.

Personally, I feel like I am buying for an anti-gay charity when I eat there. He doesn't simply believe, on his own, that homosexuality is wrong. He does not simply say, "Yes I think it is a sin. My faith tells me this and this is why I will never engage in homosexual behavior and I believe that one day, like all of us gay people will be judged for their sins. For gay people, homosexual activity will be one of the sins on their list." He is saying, "I don't support homosexuality and I want the law to reflect this belief, enforcing my beliefs on people who do not share them nor faith that lead me to having this belief." He is using his business to help create and keep unfair laws.

If others want to eat there, that's fine. That's their choice and I do not aim to control them. I just expect equal respect for my choice not to.

He is free to express his opinions verbally and in his personal life but not to change the law. Likewise, we are free to express our with media and our wallets. While I think Chick-Fil-A should be allowed to exists, despite his view that not all people deserve basic rights, I don't think the "Pray Away the Gay" and "Fix the Homos" groups that HE FUNDS should. All hate groups legally cross the line when they try to enforce their hate. (When they simply exist to hate, that's unfortunate but different.)

Edited to reply to this quote:

I think the entire Chick-Fil-A fiasco is distasteful, but overblown and stupid. I buy fuel for my car, which lines the pockets of governments on the other side of the world - governments that put people to death for performing same-sex acts. I don't like Chick-Fil-A putting my money toward anti-gay groups, but my money's already going to beheading someone I don't even know.

I just do my part to try to help others. I know I can't change everything, but I can try to help make the world a better place <3

I understand and respect why you still eat there. This thing is getting overblown and stupid, but it forces us to think at least. And trying is an important thing, in anyway possible and I am sure that you do your best to be a respectful and kind person.

For me, boycotting fuel is not possible. I wish it were, because they don't deserve money and it's bad for the environment. However, fuel is used by all businesses (I'd have to boycott them too) and ALWAYS biking is not plausible in America. :( Since Chick-fil-a is not only possible but easy to give up, I make the choice to.

[ghostwriter]

I don't think he was being a bigot. He was asked his opinion and just responded. He didn't say that homosexuality is disgusting, he didn't say that he hates gays.

He just doesnt agree with gay marriage. Also, because of something one person said doesn't mean that the whole restaurant should be condemned. Just wanted to share my opinion.

[ignoranceisn'tbliss]

I don't think he was being a bigot. He was asked his opinion and just responded. He didn't say that homosexuality is disgusting, he didn't say that he hates gays.

He just doesnt agree with gay marriage. Also, because of something one person said doesn't mean that the whole restaurant should be condemned. Just wanted to share my opinion.

From what I understand, most people choose not to eat their because he funds anti-gay groups. They only reason it's such a big deal now is because he made a political statement (and correct me if I'm wrong on this part) on behalf of his company. Of course that sparked some controversy and that led to people knowing about where he puts his money. No, he didn't say he hates gays, but he does fund organizations that are against them.

Oh, and when that one person happens to own the restaurant chain, then the chain kinda does share any views he *gives* to the chain (even if the employees don't).

Edit: News video"Chick-fil-A supports the Biblical definition of the family unit."

Edit 2: Notice that his stance was known for a while, but only now that it has become the company's position there is a reaction against the company.

[snufflebottoms]

I don't think he was being a bigot. He was asked his opinion and just responded. He didn't say that homosexuality is disgusting, he didn't say that he hates gays.

He just doesnt agree with gay marriage. Also, because of something one person said doesn't mean that the whole restaurant should be condemned. Just wanted to share my opinion.

From what I understand, most people choose not to eat their because he funds anti-gay groups. They only reason it's such a big deal now is because he made a political statement (and correct me if I'm wrong on this part) on behalf of his company. Of course that sparked some controversial and that led to people knowing about where he puts his money. No, he didn't say he hates gays, but he does fund organizations that are against them.

Oh, and when that one person happens to own the restaurant chain, then the chain kinda does share any views he *gives* to the chain (even if the employees don't).

This. It's not that he has the opinion, it's that he funds it with his profits and I don't want to be a part of those profits.

But even if it was just his opinion he was expressing, it is bigoted, in *my* opinion. You don't get to be "against gays" in the same way you don't get to be "against blacks" or "against women" or "against Jews." Society is coming to realize that allowing hate to be the law and trying to preach pseudoscience (that it is an illness or they are defective) against groups of people isn't okay. Now, when people try to do so, it is going to rightfully make a lot of people angry. He has a right to freedom of speech, but when he uses that speech to say that others shouldn't be allowed freedom to be whom they are born to be and enjoy the same legal rights as others, I think the public attack is a proper karmic punishment.

edited: That being said, I am tired of this issue. I'd much rather support getting rights for everyone. I'd much rather support pro-gay groups and pro-love groups than fight the haters. And If I am going to fight the haters, I want to fight to core of them: the organizations that Chick-fil-a is funding. Like all rights, the right to assemble, speak freely and protest is granted until you try to harm or violate others' rights. The whole purpose of these groups is to do just that. If these groups weren't around, there would be no hate to fund and Chick-fil-a couldn't use its money to do any damage.

[MiserableGuest]

I'd eat there everyday if I could. I love that they stand firm in their christian values and support organization that help many people, including gays. The bashing that they have received from the anti-christian pro-gay movement is despicable (Ban Chick-fil-A from Chicago, Boston) and has made me lose any sympathy I might still have had for their cause.

[Sally]

I'd eat there everyday if I could. I love that they stand firm in their christian values and support organization that help many people, including gays. The bashing that they have received from the anti-christian pro-gay movement is despicable (Ban Chick-fil-A from Chicago, Boston) and has made me lose any sympathy I might still have had for their cause.

Gays are not a movement, they're people, and many of them are Christians.

[snufflebottoms]

The pro-gay movement isn't any more "anti-christian" than the pro-women or anti-slavery moments were. Giving people rights isn't anti-christian. And civil rights are more than just a "cause."

I do disagree with banning them for giving money to anti-gay though. The real issues is that those groups who pretend to "help" gay people by "fixing them" and treat them as diseased. Trying to fix gays does NOT help them and I am disgusted by the mere thought.

As Sally said, belief in and love of Christ (or lack thereof) is not an issue of sexuality. Gay people can be Christian as well.

[knots]

There's a petition at school to evict homophobic Chick-Fil-A from KSU's Carmichael Student Center in Georgia.

Please sign if you agree that Hate of any kind should not be tolerated, let alone sanctioned by the school.

Sign Here

[canned beans]

[Ace Student]

I'm not giving up Chick-Fil-A. I love their Special Sauce too much.

Seriously, though, very little of CFA's philanthropy goes to anti-gay groups, and a lot of these groups cover many issues besides homosexuality. It's kind of like how, as a pro-life individual (yes, you can be pro-life and pro-gay-rights), I don't have any problem with supporting breast cancer research because the funds the Susan Kormen allegedly gives Planned Parenthood are 1) probably not that significant, since most of the money is going to scientists trying to, y'know, cure breast cancer; and 2) in all likelihood earmarked for stuff other than abortions, like breast cancer screenings.

As for asking people to separate their stance on legalizing gay marriage from their religious beliefs, though, you have to see it from their perspective. The dominant paradigm through which many in contemporary society view morality is one of humanism--if it helps humans, it is good; if it hurts humans, it is bad. But that hasn't been the case for all people in all cultures in all time. To the ancient Romans, for instance, morality was based on imperialism--if it benefit the empire and pleased the government, it was good; if it harmed the empire or displeased the government, it was bad. Other societies have based morals on things like family honor, or oneness with the universe. But to many right-wing Christians (and, incidentally, myself, although that is a story for another day), morality is based ultimately on whether or not a thing pleases and honors God. This is by no means to say they (or I!) don't care about humanity--their God wishes for them to love others, so helping people is pleasing to Him. Rather, though, this is to say that when you tell a right-wing Christian not to vote according to his/her religious beliefs, you are effectively telling him/her not to vote according to his/her moral compass. Of course (s)he is going to protest all the more loudly the more you push the issue. And if you think that (s)he needs to alter this compass to the "correct" one, who is imposing beliefs now?

Sorry if I offended anyone. I'm not trying to defend or attack any stance on the issue itself--just trying to say that there's something deeper and more personal involved here than a simple matter of, is (s)he or is (s)he not a hateful bigot?

[NamTar]

I've never even seen a Chik Fil A, but if I did, i wouldn't eat there, just because they give money to gay hate groups.

I also hate how everyone's talking about free speech. No one said dude can't state his opinion, but if that opinion is about hating a large group of people for no reason, he should expect that people will disagree and possibly boycott him. "free speech" doesn't mean "no one can complain when I voice my hateful opinion."

I saw a picture of a bus-full of people... I'm presuming they were all conservative Christians... smiling and holding up Chik-Fil-A cups, and I thought... do you know how smug you guys look? Don't pat yourself on the back. You're not standing up for your beliefs. I know people serving as missionaries in all corners of the world, including places where it can be dangerous to be a Christian. Wipe that smile off your face until you've been where they have... except, if you did, you wouldn't be smiling like that because you'd be about a hundred times humbler than you are now.

My cousin took a photo of herself and her husband in front of a Chik-Fil-A, smiling and looking smug, too, and put it on Facebook. I immediately de-friended her and was rather upset for about a week. She says she's "standing up for traditional marriage, and it's not about what she's against, it's what she's for." Bullshit. Then she told me how God hates the sin but loves the sinner. As an atheist, I was completely sickened by the way she wants to keep people who love each other from getting married, no matter what genitals they have. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone the same sex as you are. Otherwise, I think people should STFU and let people who want to get married get married. It's really none of their business and it comes off as extremely hateful and judgmental.

[Batman's Ace]

I've never eaten at Chick-fil-A, because I don't eat at fast food places in general. McDonald's restaurants sometimes have very clean restrooms (I know this courtesy of some very long drives), but I'm not particularly interested in the food. But come on, guys. Seriously?

It's a fast food chain. Good grief. We don't avoid oil from the Middle East, even though the oil money supports things like, oh, the Saudi Arabian government, under which homosexuality is a crime which can merit the death penalty. The Saudis kill homosexuals. Supported in large part by you filling up your SUV or Ugo or whatever you've got. Because, funny thing, in most cases we can distinguish between the product and the personal beliefs of the owner of a company. A lousy person can head a great company with a great product, and a great person can head a lousy company with a lousy product. The owner of Toyota might be a misogynist who beats his wife regularly. If so, I don't like him. But it doesn't reflect on the cars, and he's not the only person in the company, not by a long shot. Steve Jobs was not a nice man. So what? Person =/= Company

Furthermore: I'm baffled by the idea that a single person stating his personal beliefs can somehow cause large numbers of people to flat-out hate a chicken joint. Do people really have nothing better to get worked up about? Starving children in Africa? Human trafficking? Wheelchair-inaccessible buildings? Anything?

[Medulla Oblongata]

I understand and respect why you still eat there. This thing is getting overblown and stupid, but it forces us to think at least. And trying is an important thing, in anyway possible and I am sure that you do your best to be a respectful and kind person.

For me, boycotting fuel is not possible. I wish it were, because they don't deserve money and it's bad for the environment. However, fuel is used by all businesses (I'd have to boycott them too) and ALWAYS biking is not plausible in America. :( Since Chick-fil-a is not only possible but easy to give up, I make the choice to.

I actually don't eat there and I probably won't... I'm learning about activism right now, and it would not sit well with me emotionally if I were to dine at any of their venues. I have equal rights buttons on my purse, so I'm pretty certain that if I were to walk into one of those homophobe-clubs, I would be verbally assaulted by the hordes of Kansans packing those places full to bursting. <_<

Yeah... Kansas is not the friendliest place in regards to civil rights :(

[snufflebottoms]

I understand and respect why you still eat there. This thing is getting overblown and stupid, but it forces us to think at least. And trying is an important thing, in anyway possible and I am sure that you do your best to be a respectful and kind person.

For me, boycotting fuel is not possible. I wish it were, because they don't deserve money and it's bad for the environment. However, fuel is used by all businesses (I'd have to boycott them too) and ALWAYS biking is not plausible in America. :( Since Chick-fil-a is not only possible but easy to give up, I make the choice to.

I actually don't eat there and I probably won't... I'm learning about activism right now, and it would not sit well with me emotionally if I were to dine at any of their venues. I have equal rights buttons on my purse, so I'm pretty certain that if I were to walk into one of those homophobe-clubs, I would be verbally assaulted by the hordes of Kansans packing those places full to bursting. <_<

Yeah... Kansas is not the friendliest place in regards to civil rights :(

Oh my apologies. I thought you did still eat there. In any case, I can respect people choices in that regard (to eat or not eat there)

[ignoranceisn'tbliss]

She says she's "standing up for traditional marriage, and it's not about what she's against, it's what she's for." Bullshit.

Exactly. What does biblical marriage mean in this country other than against gay marriage?

It's a fast food chain. Good grief. We don't avoid oil from the Middle East, even though the oil money supports things like, oh, the Saudi Arabian government, under which homosexuality is a crime which can merit the death penalty. The Saudis kill homosexuals. Supported in large part by you filling up your SUV or Ugo or whatever you've got. Because, funny thing, in most cases we can distinguish between the product and the personal beliefs of the owner of a company. A lousy person can head a great company with a great product, and a great person can head a lousy company with a lousy product. The owner of Toyota might be a misogynist who beats his wife regularly. If so, I don't like him. But it doesn't reflect on the cars, and he's not the only person in the company, not by a long shot. Steve Jobs was not a nice man. So what? Person =/= Company

Furthermore: I'm baffled by the idea that a single person stating his personal beliefs can somehow cause large numbers of people to flat-out hate a chicken joint. Do people really have nothing better to get worked up about? Starving children in Africa? Human trafficking? Wheelchair-inaccessible buildings? Anything?

The oil one I'm not going to argue simply because the high demand and lack of serious effort put in to alternatives because of greedy bastards makes it impossible for us to do anything about it.

As for your other point: at this point it doesn't work because they aren't his personal beliefs anymore. In my last post, I pointed out (and provided a source) that he put this as the belief of his company.