Chick-fil-a and the Irony of the Tolerance Police

The irony of the tolerance police never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps you’ve heard about their latest sting operation aimed at Chick-fil-a. It all began earlier this week when Dan Cathy, the President of Chick-fil-a, told a reporter that the company was pro-family. He did not mention gay marriage. Nor did he say anything specifically about homosexuality. Cathy simply said this:

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. We intend to stay the course. 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.

That doesn’t sound very controversial to me. It just sounds like a Christian businessman answering a question about his faith. Have we really come so far that even these words are intolerable to the tolerance police? Well, apparently the answer is yes. Activists and sympathizers with the gay rights movement are castigating Chick-fil-a and calling for boycotts. Other media outlets have begun digging up past statements by Mr. Cathy, including one from last June about “God’s judgment” on those who wish to redefine marriage. Sensing the rising storm, Chick-fil-a tried to deescalate and released the following clarification:

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. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

It doesn’t sound all that radical, does it? Actually, it sounds rather conciliatory to me. But that hasn’t diminished the outrage of the tolerance police one whit. No, they are still out in full force calling for consumers not to tolerate Chick-fil-a’s intolerance. Calls for boycott continue, and now politicians are beginning to weigh-in. The mayor of Boston has even gone so far as to declare a ban on Chick-fil-a’s in Beantown. Mayor Thomas Menino in his own words:

Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail… If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies.

Apparently, Christian business owners are no longer allowed to express religious opinions in Boston if they run crosswise with the Mayor’s views on marriage. If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, I don’t know what will. Again, the irony appears to be lost on the good mayor, who also fails to recognize that nothing Dan Cathy says indicates that homosexual persons will in any way be discriminated against at Chick-fil-a. In fact, Cathy says this:

We’re a business that serves the public, all people are welcomed into Chick-fil-A, and frankly we do not feel called to weigh in on a lot of social activism that’s taking place as it relates to the definition of the family, but we do definitely want to encourage strong families.

Do you see how this is going? You don’t even have to mention homosexuality or gay marriage. All you have to say is that you are pro-family, and certain municipalities will exile your business. Welcome to the brave new world of tolerance.

————

UPDATE #1: The reporter who conducted the original interview with Cathy is now saying that Cathy’s remarks have been distorted in the press. Many of those reports spin Cathy’s remarks in a negative direction calling Chick-fil-a “anti-gay.” The reporter says that the term “anti-gay” never came up in the interview. “[Cathy] never even brought up that subject. Everything he stated was on the positive side … He never stated anything negative.” Read about it here.

UPDATE #2: The ostracism continues. The Jim Henson Company has now severed ties with Chick-fil-a and will no longer provide toys for Chick-fil-a kids meals. Here’s the statement from the company: “The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.” Read the rest here.

UPDATE #3: Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has said that he supports efforts to prevent Chick-fil-a from opening a store in Chicago’s 1st district. In the mayor’s own words: “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”Again, this is chilling coming from a mayor of one of our nation’s leading cities. Does this mean that a business owner is not allowed to support a Christian sexual ethic? Must all Christian business owners now keep their views to themselves on one of the most contested social policy issues of our time? Apparently, Mayor Emmanuel thinks so.

282 Responses to Chick-fil-a and the Irony of the Tolerance Police

  1. Aaron O'Kelley July 21, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    The self-contradictory nature of Mayor Menino’s words are enough to make my head explode, but the irony is apparently lost on him.

    Maybe the city’s new slogan should be: “The Freedom Trail…for those who agree with us.”

    • Mike Wyvill July 24, 2012 at 11:10 am #

      A close look at Massachusetts’ history will show you that has often been the case for years. If not centuries.

    • Nate Burns July 24, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

      “Maybe the city’s new slogan should be: ‘The Freedom Trail…for those who agree with us.'”

      Hey, that was Boston’s slogan in the 17th-18th centuries. Either not much has changed, or they’ve gone back to their roots!

    • John Novak September 20, 2012 at 1:28 am #

      I don’t see where else to comment so I just replied to a random person, which happened to be you.

      I am so annoyed that whenever liberals choose to boycott something or protest something, conservatives refer to this as the “tolerance police” and they invoke the first amendment.

      Do you not understand that the first amendment only applies to GOVERNMENT sanctions? If you say something that I don’t like in my house, I can tell you to leave.

      The first amendment only protects you from getting ARRESTED for your beliefs, thats it. You can still get boycotted for your beliefs. You can still get ostracized for your beliefs.

      I oppose the mayor’s decision as a liberal. It is my duty to call out other liberals when they get out of hand and a distrust of authority is a central tenant of liberalism. If Chicago is against the beliefs of Chick-fil-a, then they can boycott the restaurant themselves.

      It seems to me some conservatives just should “ITS THE PC POLICE” any time someone disagrees with them. As if the first amendment only applies to them.

      • John Novak September 20, 2012 at 1:43 am #

        Let me correct. If Chicago is against the beliefs of Chick-fil-a, then the CITIZENS of Chicago can boycott the restaurant themselves. The mayor’s decision is not in the nature of a true liberal, but in the nature of a police state conservative.

        Of course, most conservatives would likely refer to the boycott as the “PC police in action”. Conservatives think that the first amendment means they are free from dissent. No conservatives, people are allowed to disagree with you because NON-CONSERVATIVES have THEIR first amendment rights, too.

  2. Robert Mayfield July 21, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Apparently the mayor’s inclusion of the word “inclusive” doesn’t extend to including Chick-Fil-A and how they choose to manage their independent company… Maybe Boston ought to be more inclusive toward companies whose business model is a throwback to the true beliefs of those who shed their blood on the Freedom Trail…

  3. Da July 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Actually this is the quote that caused the uproar —

    DAN CATHY: (1:05)”…I think we are 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 to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about”

    But then it seems that most right-wing Christian’s aren’t “married” to the truth.

    • Pedalingparson July 22, 2012 at 9:30 am #

      @Da Most left-wing, transvalued, relativistic Christians don’t even believe in absolute truth, so I guess the above is just your personal interpretation?

    • Paul Bells July 22, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

      Da is not somebody’s real full name – yet they get to post. What gives Denny? Tell the truth this time…

      • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

        Paul, This post brought a number of new commenters to the site. I’ve tried to contact all of them to tell them to include first and last names if they wish to post here anymore. Since “Da” is a first-timer, I let his first comments through and told him he needed to use first and last name from now on. He wont be able to post anymore unless he does. That’s the truth.

  4. Da July 21, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Denny – how on earth can someone who calls himself a Christian lie like you just did in this article. Setting aside the debate on the issue – you’re whole last paragraph is a complete and utter lie. Shame on you. You know Cathy DID mention gay marriage in responding to the Baptist Press article and not just “pro-family”. That was when things hit the fan. Again – wow. Argue the merits all day, but to lie like you did. Bad witness there bud.

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

      Da,

      You are wrong on the facts. The Baptist Press interview dated July 16 said nothing about “God’s Judgment.” I invite readers to read it for themselves to verify.

      Cathy did mention “God’s judgment” about a month earlier in a radio interview with Ken Coleman, a talk show host in Atlanta. But that interview is not what caused the recent backlash this week. The recent dust-up is in response to the Baptist Press article which was reported on in the Los Angeles Times and subsequently picked up by a host of other major media outlets. To say that things “hit the fan” after the radio interview is inaccurate. The Baptist Press article started the recent controversy.

      I am not sure why some news reports are conflating the Baptist Press interview with that radio interview from a month ago. It looks like they are trying to piece together comments to make Kathy look as extreme as they possibly can (though I see nothing wrong with anything he said in either interview). In any case, you can listen to the “God’s judgment” remarks at 31:15 in the following audio clip:

      http://media18.podbean.com/pb/6dd114d21564c49b183a30aa0a751026/500b4dd9/blogs18/286401/uploads/KCSHOWpod24.mp3

      In context, Cathy is talking about the importance of family and the importance of children having both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Again, he never says anything about homosexuality explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview either. I invite readers to listen for themselves and verify. He merely decries efforts to redefine marriage. Obviously, his remarks apply to gay marriage, but it’s wrong to characterize his remarks as extreme or unkind. He simply affirmed a Christian ideal for the structure of the family.

      On an unrelated note, please make a note of my comments policy. It requires all commenters to use their first and last names.

      Thanks,
      Denny

      • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

        Chick-Fil-A also gives a lot of money to “pro-family” organizations (which is just a euphemism for anti-gay organizations). Many people are choosing not to patronize Chick-Fil-A any more for this reason, and that is their right as much as it is the right of the owner of the company to share his views with the world.

        As for the mayor of Boston, in a sense he’s grandstanding–he can’t block Chick-Fil-A without legal justification. That doesn’t mean that he can’t make it very difficult for them.

        Chick-Fil-A will need to demonstrate that they are not going to be discriminatory on the basis of orientation if they want to do business in Massachusetts, as such discrimination is against the law in the state.

        There are many anecdotal stories of Chick-Fil-A employees and applicants who have been grilled on details of their personal life and beliefs, clearly in violation of not only state laws but federal ones as well. I of course cannot speak to the veracity of these claims, but considering that there are quite a number of them out there and Forbes published an article on them:

        http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

        I would say that Chick-Fil-A needs to be careful if they want to do business in Massachusetts. In the meantime, people can choose to do business with them or not for whatever reason they wish. I think that not wanting your money to fund operations counter to your own philosophies is a perfectly valid one, personally.

        • Aaron Campbell July 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

          So, can we assume that any “pro-gay” organization is also “anti-family?” If a business gives to an organization like GLAAD can we assume that they are against a traditional view of marriage and they are discriminating against anyone who is in a traditional, biblical family unit? Should we assume that the Henson organization hates families? Or are you willing to admit that simply because you are for something that it does not mean that you are automatically discriminating against and making policy to exclude a particular person from participation in your organization?

          My point is that assuming that the Cathy’s hate gay people or want to exclude them from eating at Chick-fil-a because they have given to “pro-family” organizations is disingenuous.

          • Layne Box July 25, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

            Aaron- Here are a few things….
            I get frustrated with people who think that because someone is for marriage equality that they are against or hate families or the biblical family unit as you call it. I personally was raised by a single parent (my mother) and our family would not be your biblical family unit, yet I turned out fine and have been very successful. Also, I don’t think that two people wanting their family to be recognized are against anyone else’s family being recognized. The thing that it comes down to is that one side wants the bible to decide who gets to be married, and the other side wants the government to allow marriage equality and if a church or religious organization wants to recognize it or not ok. My entire family is for equality for all, because that is what our government states in the constitution.

            • Christopher Huang July 25, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

              Layne, you did not understand Aaron’s comment. He is saying that just like pro-gay doesn’t mean you’re anti-family, pro-family doesn’t necessarily mean you’re anti-gay.

        • Melody Mariner July 24, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

          “Chick-Fil-A also gives a lot of money to “pro-family” organizations (which is just a euphemism for anti-gay organizations”.

          This is merely your opinion and you do not back it up with facts at all.

          What is a fact is that Christians are not allowed to love who they love without being called a bigot and forced out of business when at all possible. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

          What I do know now is that Jim Henson Co. does not like people like me or my family. So you are right. I will no longer give them any of the money that God has blessed me with. They have made their toys part of a sex conversation that my children and grandchildren do not need to have a part with.

          • Nicholas Carpenito July 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

            A lot of time is spent arguing over the semantics here, but to break it down simply:

            Can call yourself Pro gay marriage, and still also be pro straight marriage “Traditional Family Unit?”
            Yes, but you agree that not every single family has to be a traditional family unit.

            But can you call yourself Pro Traditional Family Unit, and still be for gay marriage being allowed?
            If Mr Cathy says he is pro traditional family unit, then he is more than likely saying he does not agree that gay people should be allowed to marry. If he were not anti-gay marriage, then there would be no point to saying that he was for the Traditional Family Unit, because it’s assumed that no matter what you support, you are pro man and women marriages.
            Now were there an argument where people were stating that a man and a women should not be legally allowed to marry, and he came out and said he was pro traditional family unit, this would be a different situation. He then could say that he was for traditional marriage without making any other statements being taken from context.

            However if all of you are really supporting gay marriage rights, and those of us who think otherwise are just falsely assuming that by being pro traditional family you are against gay marriage, then I apologize for my hastiness.

            He has every right to say that he is pro or anti what ever he wants to be, and I have every right to say I’m against gay marriage if I want, but Boston has a right to say they do not want his business in their city. Just as if I wanted to open a store in Boston, and I had gone out in public saying that I was Pro only allowing white people the right to vote, they could refuse my business as well, but I’m still allowed to say that.

            • Chris Stockwell July 26, 2012 at 11:18 am #

              I disagree with your final conclusion that a city should be allowed to deny permits to do business therein based solely on the religious or moral views of the company’s leaders. It is true that the PEOPLE in the city have the right to boycott the business if they disagree with the business owners’ views. But a city should not be able to discriminate against businesses without other legal grounds.
              This should be applied without partiality. A conservative mayor should not be able to deny permits to a company that has owners who support gay marriage and a liberal mayor should not be able to do what the mayors of Boston and Chicago are doing.
              Even though the Mayor cannot absolutely deny permits to the company, the fact that he intends to make it more difficult to acquire those permits for one company than for another based only on religious or political views, is unethical and highly alarming. The process of applying for and obtaining a business permit should not be influenced in any way by religious expression.

        • Gene Bridges July 25, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

          I would also add that Chick-Fil-A’s stand is not and never has been the actual issue. It comes as no surprise, because gays themselves have been saying this all along but have been largely ignored. What you are failing to grasp, Denny, is that what they find the most offensive is the prevarication, which seems to underwrite an ongoing problem Cathy and the company have with the 9th Commandment. When asked about these things by the gay press and secular media in the past, they’ve skirted the issue; but they chose to be candid in Christian media. So, for the gays and the secular media – they aren’t worthy of such candid speech; for Baptists, well – they are, and they appear to be counting on Baptists to swallow the line hook line and sinker, for they knew the reaction this would provoke, so they are hoping lost sales from one group will be made up by another. And, let’s just be clear, it’s simply duplicitous on your part to hide behind him not mention gay marriage, et.al. – we all know that “traditional family values” et.al. is code speech a stand against homosexual relationships. That’s fine – but prevarication is not fine.

          What’s more, with respect to Henson pulling the plug on their sponsorship – something you don’t seem too keen to mention to your readers – is that on the heels of that announcement, signs have been posted in some CFA stores and their own PR office has stated that the toys were removed because of a “safety recall.” That’s an out and out lie and we all know it is. What’s more, if you do some homework on the internet, you will find that just today, they were outed for having created a fake Facebook profile, stock photo and all, to leave comments to their detractors in order to defend that very lie.

          So, this seems to present you and your readers and NC/Southern Baptists with a conundrum: Support CFA for their stand on family values, but to do so is to so at the expense of their stand on the 9th Commandment. CFA – good on the Bible on marriage and family, but on that pesky 9th Commandment, well, they’re a bit “iffy.” So, to be consistent, it would seem thinking Baptists should be as appalled by CFA with respect to the 9th Commandment as they are with gays over traditional family values or the lack thereof.

        • Anna Carpenter July 27, 2012 at 8:55 am #

          Another fine reason for not visiting Massachusetts or doing business with anyone in that state !

          • Tony Andreaccio August 5, 2012 at 12:55 am #

            Wow now we’re boycotting a state. If Christians boycotted everything against our biblical beliefs then we would not go anywhere, buy anything or live in this world. If Boston or Chicago is boycotting Christian companies then the people of the church should flock there without fear and preach the gospel with love not get caught up in boycotts. (just saying)

      • Takami Takahashi July 23, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

        It doesn’t have to be said specifically its implied. What other forms of marriage could be talked about there? He’s made his view on the whole thing pretty clear. Basically when I was growing up it was basically not what you say but how ya say it. There’s layers to words. Also to the staying out of politics on the matters he’s donated plenty.

      • Dan Nigro July 24, 2012 at 1:11 am #

        Denny,

        I’ve been following this story, and here on your blog you don’t mention anything regarding what people are really upset about. This is not about the CEO’s right to voice his opinion — of course he enjoys the same first amendment rights as every other American. But rather this is about CFA funding lobbies to deny a segment of Americans equal rights. This is not about freedom of speech. It’s about civil rights. It’s a private corportation which is supposedly religion-based (though that seems to be only loosely true), which has vigorously attempted to manipulate state and federal legislation with its customers dollars, and many customers who weren’t previously aware of where their money was going are now angry.

        Regards,

        Dan

        • Anna Carpenter July 27, 2012 at 9:13 am #

          Well you can put lipstick on the pig all you want BUT it is STILL a SIN and you will go to hell for it. Now if you are all excited about spending your eternity in a lake of fire… all rightie go right ahead.

          I CHOOSE LIFE I CHOOSE GODS FAMILY VALUES not some trumped up crap from the left lunatics.

          You can choose to follow SATIN all you want. That is YOUR choice.
          I fully support the company and I fully support them giving money to ban gay joke marriage.

          Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony and always was until the Fed Govt figured out they could make money off of it. So if Gays are so ANTI GOD it makes one wonder why they want to be part of something that is fully based on Christianity ?? Have all the stupid civil unions you want, but leave my Religious values OUT of it. And for those so called “Religious” organizations that now “Welcome” the Gays as… cough .. ministers .. well … Welcome to the Highway to Hell because that is where everyone in charge and those that support it are going.

          I am sick and tired of the LEFT telling ME and other Christians that we HAVE to believe in your Lifestyle of sin and support it. NO WE DON’T. The Bible says to Hate the sin and love the sinner. That is what I choose to do because God wants that, but I will NOT support that lifestyle in any form.

        • Barry Noack July 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm #

          I find it both funny and highly offensive that you accuse CFA of “vigorously attempting to manipulate state and federal legislation with customer dollars”! For starters, let’s be upfront about all things here. There was a legal vote in California a while back that you may be familiar with called “Proposition 8″, and the people made their will known. Then that vote was “illegally” overturned because same-sex marriage supporters were complaining about the outcome!
          Also, you don’t seem to have a problem with companies that donate to the supporters of same-sex marriage. Or would you also accuse Wal-Mart of “vigorously attempting to manipulate state and federal legislation with customer dollars”??? I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t. And lastly, I get angry every time I see someone attempt to make this a “civil rights” or “equal rights” issue! For starters, homosexuals choose to live their lifestyle, where blacks did not choose to be born with darker skin! Next, I have yet to see mass lynchings, job denials, bombings, etc., applied to homosexuals as they were to blacks. They have all the rights we are entitled to and have yet to be denied even one. But they want to change the definition of marriage and force their lifestyle on the rest of the population! They have every right to live how they want, but to force us to accept that and validate it….that is the real issue! So in the future don’t even fix your mouth or your fingers to say anything that insulting again!!!

  5. Patrick July 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    Agree whole-heartedly. In the interest of full disclosure though, I think he did say that gay marriage was inviting Gods judgement, which is why everyone got so riled up.

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

      No, Cathy didn’t mention “God’s judgment” in the Baptist Press interview that started all of this. See my comment above.

      • Chris Hauck July 22, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

        The quote may not have bubbled up until this interview came out. But that was the quote that caused a lot of the irritation on the more liberal blogs I read (I like to read liberal, conservative and moderate sources). And it was this quote coupled with Chick-Fil-A’s history of anti-gay donations that are sparking the boycotts. Not Dan Cathy saying that he is a Christian.

        And this all seems pretty reasonable. If you are gay, why would you want to donate money to a company that takes your money and then gives it to organizations that specifically try to deprive you of rights.

        Dan is entitled to the protections of the first amendment and does not deserve to be jailed for his words. But his words and actions have consequences. In this case, it’s going to cost him money from LGBT people and their supporters. Fair enough to me.

        • Bruce Smith July 25, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

          Chris,

          It may cost CFA a few more LGBT dollars but overall I think they are going to see an huge increase in sales and not only from Chrstians but just Americans in general. I think it was actually kind of dumb move on the LGBT to do this. I think Starbucks has supported Gay issues and I was just in there this morning and will continue to go back. I will also go a little bit out of my a few more times weeklyto eat at CFA to just show my support!

          • Ian Carrico July 26, 2012 at 5:59 am #

            Bruce / Denny,

            I was going to write a comment about some of the inaccuracies of the article, especially since I think I am included in the “tolerance police” group mentioned here. But, I think you summed up the gay-marriage debate incredibly well within you comment Bruce.

            The LGBT community will try and stop supporting CFA, because their money has been shown to go to support legislation to deprive them of their rights. The reason why you will continue going to Starbucks, using Google, and be on either an Apple or Windows machine (all of which support gay rights with their funds) is because under no circumstances will that money deprive you of your rights, or really affect you life at all.

            This article is biased to try and demonstrate that the “tolerant” left is not as tolerant because they do not support a Christian business owner. What it fails to present is not that the boycott stems from a Christian business owner, nor Christianity itself. What it stems from is a business that decided to get involved with politics with not only its statements, but also its money. Sure, the first quote above that sparked the debate does not directly say that the company is anti-gay marriage, but it does say that the COMPANY, not the CEO, supports only the “biblical definition of the family unit”. In this context, do you think they were talking about not gay marriage here? I would be all ears to hear a different interpretation of that phrase.

            From that point, more information was revealed such as the second interview, and the funds for the prop 8 campaign. It should be no surprise that after a company gets involved with politics, or other people’s rights, that they are then subject to the fallout from those choices. This does not make people any less tolerant who decide not to go to CFA anymore, what it makes them is undeserving to fund a company that will try and keep their rights away from them.

            • Denny Burk July 26, 2012 at 6:38 am #

              Yes, I think Cathy’s remarks certainly have reference to gay marriage. I never meant to imply otherwise.

            • Barbara Price July 27, 2012 at 9:49 am #

              The difference between the “tolerant” left and the “intolerant” right is that the “tolerant” left is only tolerant of people who agree with them. They will picket and try to boycott company who doesn’t do what they think is right. The “intolerant” right believes everyone has a right to their opinion and does not try to force other people to believe what they do by picketing or boycotting.

              The whole thing is silly. If you don’t want to eat at Chick-fil-A because the CEO is a conservative Christian who believes in the bible, don’t. But don’t put words in his mouth saying that he hates gays, because true Christians don’t hate anyone.

              That, my friends, is the difference between true Christians and non-Christians, or false Christians.

              I frequently eat at Chick-fil-A because they make a tasty product. I sometimes go to Starbucks because they make a tasty product. Their political affiliations whether left or right leaning make no difference to the tastiness of their products.

              As for Jim Henson Inc., my 2 year old is not that fond of Sesame Street anyway, and if they choose to not supply Chick-fil-A with their products, that is one more reason for me to go there. But all that decision really shows, is that they are as intolerant as the rest of the people who want to ban Chick-fil-A from their cities because of the belief of the CEO.

              I am a Christian, and I support people’s choices to be with whomever they choose. I don’t believe it is my place to judge anyone.

            • Barry Noack July 29, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

              So by your “logic” christians should be mad at Wal-Mart and the other companies you mentioned because of who their dollars go to support, right? Of course not, and to imply that is asinine!

              It’s a companies own business who they choose to support, and that does not give anyone the right to call for a boycott. If that were the case then let’s be fair across the board and boycott any company that doesn’t agree with our views or supports the competition!

              And again, the only one’s attempting to keep rights from anyone is the LGBT. They want to change the definition of marriage and force the rest of the country to approve of and validate their lifestyles! Live how you want, but don’t expect to make me approve of it. God is very clear on what it is and that won’t change, so neither will I…and that sir is OUR right!

        • Ken Rucker July 26, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

          There seems to be an assumption that “donations to Christian charities” is equivalent to “anti-gay donations”. There also seems to be an assumption that “anti-gay donations” is being a “gay-hater”. I don’t think either of these assumptions are right or helpful.

          • Chris Hauck July 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

            Come on now Ken. People aren’t getting upset because he donated to a Christian “Feed the Homeless fund.” There are plenty of religious business leaders who make large donations to their churches (even anti-gay ones) without anyone batting an eye.

            Dan’s donations went to vehemently anti-gay organizations that work proactively do deny equal rights to gay Americans. Given his history of donations, on the record statements and lack of denial of the anti-gay marriage allegations – I think his intent is pretty clear. This isn’t an issue of trying to read “tea leaves.”

            Hate is a strong word. But that’s just nitpicking. Making anti-gay donations is certainly some type of condescending disdain or disapproval at the very least.

            • Barry Noack July 29, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

              WOW!!! Look who’s being morally dishonest now!

              For starters let’s be clear, it’s not “denying equal rights to gay Americans” if you oppose their efforts to change the definition of marriage!

              And dude…he’s a christian, so what would you expect him to support??? That’s called following your beliefs through to the end. Why is it so surprising to people like you when we actually do what we should and support those causes that are in line with our beliefs?

              And lastly, just because we agree with God that homosexuality is a sin and hate that sin just as much as God does, does NOT mean that we hate homosexuals. We do however, wish to see them saved just as much as anyone else. Why? Because we love God and love them enough not to want to see them go to Hell!

              If you’re gonna represent us…then do it right

        • Tony Andreaccio August 5, 2012 at 1:30 am #

          I’m pretty sure he’s ok with the judgement against him by the LBGTQQI community. It’s God’s judgement he’s concerned about. What an awesome thing for him to speak when given the platform by God to do so.

      • Jared May July 24, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

        What is your point? Why does it matter if he said it in an interview with the Baptist Press, or an interview a month earlier? He has since affirmed those statements, but perhaps you’ve missed the “guilty as charged comments?”

        Really, what is the fixation with whether or he made the comments in one particular interview? How does that change anything?

  6. Robert Pavich July 21, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    The irony is lost on every “Christ-o-Phobe” that I’ve run into online when discussing this topic.

    Apparently tolerance is required “only if you agree with what I believe”….

    • Chris Hauck July 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

      Depends on your definition of tolerance. I don’t think most moderates and liberals would equate people refusing to eat at a restaurant that donates to anti-gay organisations with someone who believes they have the right to deprive others of the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

      If McDonalds was donating to organizations that made laws allowing Christians to be fired just for being Christian in several states, I doubt you would equate refusing to eat at McDonalds with them depriving you of the same right right to work that others enjoy.

      Feel free to keep trying to compare the two, but there’s a reason that argument doesn’t resonate well with moderates or anyone outside of the very conservative blogs.

    • Sandi King July 22, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

      Since when is it intolerant to say what you believe? He also said that they have only been married once. Should I be offended because I have been married before? He is stating God’s answer to family, so you are arguing with God not him. I have not been true to God’s plan for families but that doesn’t make me right and God wrong. My brother is gay and I love him and his partner, but that doesn’t make him right. The standard is not ours, it is God’s. Our local restaurant would not turn him away or treat him unloving any more than they would me. THAT is tolerance…

      • Chris Hauck July 22, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

        Dan is 100% entitled to his beliefs. However, beliefs can also be intolerant. I’d hope we all agree that both religious and secular beliefs that slavery was justified back in the day were intolerant. And if Cathy said his religious belief was that Latinos shouldn’t be allowed to drive, he would face a similar backlash.

        As for “arguing with God,” let’s be clear you are referring to your god. My God is perfectly fine with gay people getting married. My God cares much more about taking care of the poor and downtrodden. It’s supposedly the wonderful thing about America. We can all have our own religious beliefs, but are able to have the same rights in the public sphere. We are all free to choose our own religious beliefs, but are also free from being oppressed by those of other religions.

        I firmly believe that Dan has the right to his views. I fully defend his right to state his beliefs. And I disagree with the Mayor of Boston. I would certainly hope the city would not block Chick-fil-A from opening there. However, when Dan states beliefs that degrade a group of people, he opens himself up to criticism. And just as Dan has the right to state his beliefs and donate his corporation’s profits to causes he holds dear, gay people and their allies have the right to disagree with him and choose to spend their money elsewhere.

        Frankly, I don’t understand the criticism. It’s not intolerant for gay people to refuse to spend money with a company donating their profits to anti-gay organizations. If anything it would be stupid for anyone to give their hard earned cash to a company that they know is going to spend it against them.

        • Sandy Cahill July 23, 2012 at 10:50 am #

          Chris H,

          I don’t see any evidence that Chik-fi-A or any of the other commentors are trying to “oppress” anyone. If anything, Chik-fil-A is the business being oppressed, simply for having an opinion. Furthermore, being gay is not like being Latino or black or Asian. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/
          I see no quote by the owner of Chik-fil-a or their associates that says that they “hate” anyone, refuse service to anyone, or in any way are “prejudiced” against people themselves. I see only a man expressing what he believes “his God” desires, and didn’t you just say that this is the wonderful part about America? That everyone can have their own beliefs and can express them? How is he “oppressing” anyone? Is this what we have come to, where stating a position becomes “oppression?” What good is the first amendment anymore?
          Are you oppressing me because you state different beliefs?

          • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

            “I don’t see any evidence that Chik-fi-A or any of the other commentors are trying to “oppress” anyone. If anything, Chik-fil-A is the business being oppressed, simply for having an opinion.”

            Sandy, if you do not see it, then you simply do not want to see it.

            The owner of Chick-fil-A was not only critical of gay marriage, but has donated tons of money from the company’s profits to organizations that work to deprive gay people of many different rights, including marriage. That is where the backlash is coming from.

            And CFA is not being oppressed, they are being boycotted. There is a big difference. Just as Dan has the right to state his beliefs and donate his money where he sees fit. People have the right to decide what businesses they wish to spend their money with. Dan has invoked his right to free speech and gay people and their allies have invoked their right to free speech. Again, fair is fair. While I personally disagree with Dan’s opinion, I don’t feel either side is in the wrong here. Both have the right to state their views and decide where to spend their hard earned cash.

            “Furthermore, being gay is not like being Latino or black or Asian.”

            How? You are born with your race and sexuality. Discriminating against any of the four in the public sphere is wrong.

            “I see only a man expressing what he believes “his God” desires, and didn’t you just say that this is the wonderful part about America? That everyone can have their own beliefs and can express them? How is he “oppressing” anyone?”

            First off, depriving other citizens of equal rights in the public sphere is oppressing them. Gay people are not deserving of any fewer rights than Mr. Cathy himself. I don’t feel his church has any obligation to marry gay people, but when he actively donates to prevent that right, he opens himself up to criticism.

            And again, no one is oppressing him. Gay people and their allies have simply made the choice that they would rather spend their money at a different restaurant. Dan’s not in jail. He wasn’t arrested. No one dragged him out of his house and stoned him in the street. People simply realized he was anti-gay and making anti-gay donations from his restaurants profits and decided they didn’t want their lunch money being donated to causes they believe harm them. Again, everyone involved is well within their rights.

            • John Arbor July 23, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

              Chris –

              Great posts, both balanced and eloquent. I appreciate you bringing a moderate, level-headed view that is often found lacking on hot button issues such as these.

            • John Duffy July 25, 2012 at 11:54 am #

              You are born with your race, yes. You are not, however, born with your sexual orientation. That is a choice made by the individual. There is no gene that determines if one would be attracted to the opposite or the same sex. I know that people like to claim that they are “born gay” but that’s no more than an excuse for their lifestyle choices. Now perhaps, because of a child’s upbringing, or the environment in which they were raised, children might lean either way. It is a choice to be gay, just as it is a choice to be straight. But even if a person was born and raised in a place where everyone encouraged the gay lifestyle, God will still hold that person accountable to make the right decision, and not break God’s law.
              Now, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because I see it written in the Bible. I do not, however, believe I should treat gays any differently than anyone else. Why? Because while people have free will, and God will hold sinners accountable for their actions, there is the matter of love and compassion. Today is the day of salvation. Judgement will be passed by God one day, not me. Honestly, the homosexual debate should never have reached the extremes that it has. There is no difference between a man who chooses to be attracted to other men, and a man who chooses to be attracted to women. Both are sinners. Both are in need of a savior, and that savior is Jesus Christ.

              • Madelaine Heaven July 25, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

                Amen, Mr. Duffy. A very eloquent, accurate, and level-headed/calm response. Thank you.

              • Gene Bridges July 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

                Being gay is a choice made by an individual. Really? Is that what the Exodus International and NARTH literature states? No, it isn’t, not at all. That literature states that sexual orientation is the result of a complex and unconscious result of the working of social factors, most notably those factors dealing with same sex bonding or lack thereof with same sex parents and peers and happens in early childhood.

                It is well past time that the critics of homosexuality within the evangelical camp familiarize themselves with the very literature that their own organizations use and promote before stating such obviously erroneous information as you have here. From the Exodus Alliance website itself:: It is also important to understand that people do not choose to be homosexuals. No one wakes up one day when they are 15 or 20 or 50 years old and says, “I have been heterosexual all my life. Today I choose to be homosexual.” In fact, the experience of most people is that they felt different from their earliest memories. Further they did not want these feelings and resisted them for years.

                • John Duffy July 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

                  Correction, Sir. There are times when people who have chosen to be heterosexual decide to experiment with the same sex. This, just like any other sin in the world, is a conscious decision. Now, if you read my comment, rather than just reading my first two or three sentences, you’ll see that I credited social factors and the environment a child grows up in, as influences on one’s decision. I simply said that it is not genetic. But social factors are no excuse for sin. Would you excuse a murderer because he grew up in a family of thieves and murderers? Or would you hold him responsible for his actions? Everyone is responsible for his own actions, whether they have been indoctrinated or not.

                  In regards to those who resist their homosexual tendencies, I say “bravo.” Just because someone wants to do the right thing, does not mean that it will be easy. I have heard stories from people that tell how God helped them break their addictions to smoking or drinking instantly. But I know other stories, and from my own experiences, that tell of the desire to do right in a constant struggle with temptation. I have struggled all my adult life with certain sins. I do not excuse them. I seek God’s help to rid myself of the temptation that plagues me. It’s a battle. But it’s a battle worth fighting for. It is better to fight temptation and sin, even if you fail sometimes, than to just give up and give in to temptation. You’ll find it hard to find something worth doing that doesn’t require effort.

                  One more thing, temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted in the desert. But He did not sin. Temptation is not what condemns us, it is the act of giving into temptation and sinning that condemns us. If a man feels attracted to someone of the same sex, he is not sinning. He is undergoing temptation. If he allows his heart to lust after that man, or if he goes and sleeps with that man, then he has committed sin. God will not count it against you if you feel tempted to lie, nor will he count it against you if you feel attracted to the same sex. It’s only if you give in to your temptation.

                  • Chris Hauck July 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

                    Sorry John, but this is complete bunk. If you are going to use your beliefs to deny someone equal government access, at least be intellectually honest about it.

                    LGBT people universally claim they were born gay and did not exhibit any choice. Similarly, straight people do not claim they often have gay thoughts, but “choose” to be straight.

                    It takes extreme hubris to think that you as a straight person, who most likely doesn’t “choose” straight over the gay ones you have, are more of an expert on whether or not a person is born gay than gay people.

                    I understand why you would want to twist those facts. It is certainly easier to deny equal rights to someone if you think they are making a choice. However, it is very intellectually dishonest and frankly it is a bit cowardly.

                    There’s not one specific gene that controls most aspects of human appearance and psychology. So the lack of an identified “gay gene” is pretty meaningless. There is also no specific “height gene,” yet we certainly wouldn’t claim that people choose to be short.

                    You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but at least be honest with yourself. And if you are going to claim moral superiority deserving of rights you would deny to others, look them in the eye and say so without trying to tell them their group experience is incorrect, while you know they made a choice despite having no experience to back it up.

                    • John Duffy July 26, 2012 at 12:21 am #

                      At what point did I say that gays should be denied equal rights? Do you assume you know everything about my stance just because I say that homosexuality is a sin? I never said they should be denied equal rights. Personally, I say they should get the same rights, just without calling it a marriage. They’ve gotten by this far with their “unions” so why try and take a Biblical term and twist it. That’s what I don’t like. The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. If two gays want to get together and reap the same benefits that a married couple do in this country, fine! Go ahead, it makes no difference to me. I just don’t like calling what isn’t marriage, marriage.

                      “LGBT people universally claim they were born gay…” Now, I’m sure that not EVERY LGBT person claims that. You mean to tell me that not one gay person has gone without claiming he was born that way? You really can’t say that without personally knowing every single LGBT person, which I highly doubt you do. But if we are using “universally” in a more loose term like “95%” or something along those lines, very well. Let me say that universally, (95%) men guilty of crimes claim either innocence or insanity to escape the consequences. “Universally” people like to shift blame for their own actions to another person, an event, or something else that was beyond their control. After all, can you blame a thief who was starving due to the economic depression we’re in? (slight sarcasm used)
                      The point is, it doesn’t matter if you were forced into a scenario where you had to break the law…starving or not, it is criminal to steal. Is there room for mercy? Sure there is! Does it wipe the slate clean? No.
                      Now, whether or not a man is born gay, is not the ultimate point. Because even if he is (which I still doubt) is he not responsible for his actions? You see, here’s the thing. The only way you can argue that someone is born gay is through the fact that we are all born sinners. Would it seem harsh to say that we are all born deserving of Hell? Of course! But when you consider that God made a way out for all sinners, and that He did so through the greatest act of compassion ever, you realize that God knew we were hopeless, so He gave us hope. We are all born sinners. We are all born with the potential to lie, steal, fornicate, murder, etc. The question is, do we give in to our basest instincts? Homosexuality is a sin that EVERYONE has the potential to commit. Like I said earlier, it’s no different than any other sin.

                    • Chris Hauck July 26, 2012 at 2:29 am #

                      Well, you contradict yourself in about two sentences, but there’s at least room for middle ground. Quite simply, we aren’t discussing the religious sacrament of marriage – because gay people have that already. There are any number of denominations that perform gay marriages. Your denomination does not and I fully respect your right not to.

                      What we are talking about is a government contract. All I am in favor of is those being the same. So if heterosexuals get a marriage contract, then gay people should also get a marriage contract.

                      If we want to agree that “marriage” is a religious term and should be left up to each individual religion, while it’s not my preference, I can at least respect a solution where the government gives all citizens civil union contracts and then it is up to each religion to determine if they are going to solemnize and honor that marriage.

                      As for the second part, it’s a pretty typical sophistry with some pretty muddy logic. I am not sure how you can equate people who do not believe homosexuality is a sin saying they were born gay with someone saying they stole an item because of the economy. Those are logically incompatible.

                      People are born gay. Homosexuality isn’t just an act that all people are “tempted to.” But there’s not too much point in going down this road, because you are deeply committed the current teachings of your faith and I know there is nothing I am going to say that is going to convince you being born gay isn’t a sin.

                      I will simply end this by bringing it full circle. I vehemently disagree with your beliefs, but I also fully respect your right to have them. Ultimately, if the government honors all contracts in an equal way, we can all co-exists with our multitude of diverse beliefs and both your religion and my religion can choose if we want to honor those contracts for gay couples, mormon couples, interracial couples, etc.

                    • Christopher Huang July 26, 2012 at 9:21 am #

                      technically, anti-gay-marriage is not about denying rights to anyone. gay people would still be able to marry, just not to someone of the same gender.

                    • Chris Hauck July 26, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

                      Christopher, even most people who are against gay marriage know that argument is illogical.

                      If it’s true than we can go ahead and inform the Supreme Court they made a huge mistake in Living v Virginia, since no one was being denied rights, as anyone could already marry someone of the same race.

                      Denying gay couples equal access to the government contracts that heterosexual couples have is a limitation on individual liberty and a denial of equal rights.

              • Steve Aronberg July 26, 2012 at 9:38 am #

                “You are not born with your sexual orientation?” How do you know this? When did you choose to be heterosexual and to live a heterosexual lifestyle? Were you offered the alternative? No-one chooses their sexual orientation. That is just ignorant.

                Why would a person choose to be gay? So they can be subjected to constant harassment and be told they will be held in judgement by people like you? So they can have their rights denied by others based on their narrow minded beliefs? What exactly are the advantages to being gay that would make so many people want to “choose” that lifestyle?

                Let me take this opportunity as a teaching moment for you. You choose to believe whatever you like, but the fact is that no-one chooses to be gay. We just accept it and learn to live with it. Then, we embrace it and live proudly.

                What really is a sin is that people hold other people in judgement and actively work to deny them their rights as humans. Does not sound very “christian” to me. Walk a mile in my shoes Mr. Duffy.

              • Chris Stockwell July 26, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

                John, even though I agree that the practice of homosexuality is immoral, I could not disagree with you more about the idea that people choose to be attracted to the same sex. I have too many friends who are gay who have stayed up all night crying and praying that God would make them attracted to the opposite sex.

                Your words are offensive because you speak with authority on a subject of which you have no understanding. It’s terrible to smugly pronounce to all the homosexuals who have spent years hiding the truth and trying make themselves straight, “you chose this!”

                Having said that, just because a certain sexual desire is natural to a person, does not mean that it is moral to act on that desire. I may have a natural desire to swing with another couple. We would all be consenting adults, but that doesn’t mean that it’s moral according to God. Don’t be afraid to admit that some people are born gay or become gay due to environment. Admitting that doesn’t mean you have to believe that the practice of homosexuality is moral.

            • Michelle Poland July 25, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

              I don’t see where Mr Cathy said that he would deprive anyone of equal rights. Let those who support same sex marriages boycott him and/or his company. It the same rights, I will support him and/or his company. I believe if he had said he was pro same sex marriage things would not have escalated this far. It is because he lives by the principle of what the Bible states that he is being put in the spot light. Anytime the Bible is brought into an argument ppl start saying oh, he/she is a bigot or discriminatory. Why is it Christians have to be put in the spot light for what they believe in a country that supposedly supports freedom of beliefs?? I would never say that I cannot be friends with anyone who is pro gay, I have had and still have some friends who have chosen that life style. We just agreed to disagree. I do not see anything saying that the Cathy family is any different. Discriminating means that you are not allowing that person/s to be a part of society, you are refusing to let them enter your establishment or business. I do not see this anywhere in any of his comments. If supporting an agency that stands up for what you believe is right means you are being discriminatory, then no one should ever support a company again. Because whenever you support a company who is “for” something, there will always be something that company is against.

              • Chris Hauck July 25, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

                From the Seattle Times (And feel free too Google if you want other sources)

                “A national group opposed to gay marriage called Wednesday for a boycott of Starbucks in response to the company’s public support of a new same-sex marriage law in Washington state.

                Following a shareholders’ meeting of the Seattle-based coffee giant on Wednesday, the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage announced a “Dump Starbucks” protest.

                The group says it will place ads throughout the country, as well as in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, urging consumers to boycott the company. The group is supporting a referendum effort to overturn a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington state.

                “We will not tolerate an international company attempting to force its misguided values on citizens,” said the group’s president, Brian Brown, in a written statement announcing the boycott.”

                Has nothing to do with Cathy supporting his beliefs with the Bible. It has everything to do with both his words and donations to anti-gay organizations. Both sides play this same game.

              • Chris Hauck July 25, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

                “Why is it Christians have to be put in the spot light for what they believe in a country that supposedly supports freedom of beliefs??”

                Let’s also be clear that it is rare a Christian faces ire simply for their beliefs (not saying it never happens, just rare). In most cases, it is for taking actions that prevent gay people from having access to the same government contracts that those Christians enjoy.

                Most people respect that each and every religion has the right to their own beliefs and can practice them. What angers people is those same people using their beliefs as a barrier to prevent equal access to a minority group.

            • Debra Kent July 26, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

              @Chris “Furthermore, being gay is not like being Latino or black or Asian.”

              “How? You are born with your race and sexuality. Discriminating against any of the four in the public sphere is wrong.”

              A person is certainly born with their race but born with their sexual preference is up for debate and not scientifically proven. A person is born with their gender. Certainly, Science is doing what it can to prove what it sets out to prove however that in itself is a highly debated topic and yet to concretely be established.

        • Tom Henderson July 27, 2012 at 1:12 am #

          Chris your statement about slavery and Latinos driving or not doesn’t make sense in this discussion. We are talking about a man who happens to be a Christian and a COO of a company and statements he made in answer to a question. Being “gay” does not equate to being “black” and forced into slavery or being Latino. Black and Latino are races of people, but gay is not a race it is a choice. Who you want to marry is not the same as the color of you skin. Sorry that arguement won’t work!

        • Ron Samples July 28, 2012 at 11:21 am #

          “My God is perfectly fine with gay people getting married. My God cares much more about taking care of the poor and downtrodden.” Your arguments are well spoken Chris and I appreciate their thoughtfulness. My question at this point then is who is your (G)od? If it is the God of the bible then it would be nice to have some documentation of that statement. Does He care “much more” about that? Where does God give any validity to same sex marriage? Are you sure this isn’t your god in your mind. What God is most concerned about is obedience (ex 14:5, Deut 11:26-28, 1Sam.15:22, 2 Cor. 2:9, et. al.) If your god is not the one of the Bible, then it would be helpful to know which god you are talking about. Allah ? (no I don’t think that would fit w/your statements) Buddah ? (you know the guy who deserted his wife and newborn…sounds like a god I’d want to follow), or maybe it’s one of the 100 thousand or so gods of hinduism? (you know the ones who thought the earth was resting on the back of a turtle). Help us to know where the authority is for you to say these things.

      • Michelle Frisbee July 27, 2012 at 2:03 am #

        Amen and thank you… Finally a voice of reason and true tolerance.

        You should be allowed to disagree without being called a bigot, hate-monger or intolerant. We all have the right to support what we believe. If you don’t agree with a business’ stance, take your money elsewhere, but don’t try to bully the other into submission. And no one has the right to “not be offended” ever. They have just as much rights to their opinion as you do! You are going to hear things that offend you all through your life… grow up… get over it. Sheesh!

  7. frank o. July 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    The controversy was in Cathy’s second round of comments where he opined that America was invoking God’s judgement because of its slide towards embracing gay “marriage”. While that may be true, it certainly was more controversial than the first comment which is the only one quoted here.

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

      There was no second round of comments in the Baptist Press article. In fact, Cathy didn’t mention “God’s judgment” in the Baptist Press interview at all. See my comment above.

      • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

        Everyone I know who was outraged by this second interview was outraged because it confirmed the sentiments of the first interview.

  8. John Wojciechowski July 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    Yes. Ironic and saddening. Thanks for writing clearly and without bias.

  9. Jake Barker July 21, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    Wasn’t that the same thing the mayor of Sodom said shortly before it’s demise?

  10. Wade Choate July 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    Often reminded of the song by Metallica “Eye of the Beholder” when this stuff makes the news.

    It is chilling, but netiher is it unexpected.

    When you have a worldview that is exposed for what it really is (a bold faced lie) with it’s head being crushed by Christ, and the kingdom of God advancing worldwide (through the Bride of Christ), it is to be expected. The serpent is dead, he is simply flailing about in his death throes, which manifest itself in unrest, tyranny and discord.

    Yes indeed it will be difficult for a little while, and will could get worse, but Jesus is on His throne, His word is in effect and doing as He directs.

    • Chris Hauck July 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

      Lol, the irony is that this is exactly what the other side says as well. Anti-gay prejudice is in its death throes with the the anti-gay side lashing out like a wounded animal.

      I guess a lot of the imagery is the same :)

  11. Tim July 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston . . . We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.
    ———————-
    The irony is beyond words.

    • Mike Ricky July 22, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

      Seriously, is it wrong in Boston to express an belief. If we do not share the same ideas w

      e cannot live in the same city? That doesn’t seem very “open”? Should all business owners in Boston be interviewed about there beliefs and banished if they disagree with you?

      I live in the “closed minded” south where we enjoy food and community. Gays, straights, Muslim, Jew, and others capable of cooking a fine meal can make a living doing it.

      • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

        The mayor doesn’t actually have unilateral power to allow or disallow businesses to operate in Boston. He’s talking big here. That said, Chick-Fil-A will have to make sure that they adhere to the letter to every Boston and Massachusetts business regulation, since they will be heavily scrutinized. When a business whose values and practices potentially go against the law in a specific area, that business tends to be monitored closely.

      • Jeff Stirler July 25, 2012 at 10:29 am #

        “Should all business owners in Boston be interviewed about there beliefs and banished if they disagree with you? ”

        Careful what we wish for, that could easily happen anywhere.

        “I live in the “closed minded” south where we enjoy food and community. Gays, straights, Muslim, Jew, and others capable of cooking a fine meal can make a living doing it.”

        EXACTLY!!!! As a “South” Dakota resident, I don’t ask what someone’s political ideologies are before I patronize their establishment. I choose to continue and/or discontinue my patronage based on the quality of the service and/or product being provided!

  12. Da July 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Wow – filtering out any disagreeing comments too. How do you sleep at night?

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

      Da, please read my comments policy. It requires commenters to use their real first and last names. Without both, comments are filtered. Please resubmit your comments with your real first and last name (no pseudonyms).

  13. Rich Barcellos July 21, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    the mayor believes in hell?

  14. Carla Rolfe July 21, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Really good post – I’ve shared it on FB. I wonder if it’s *just* Christians that aren’t welcome to run their businesses as they see fit, or if this attitude is also extended toward other religions, Islam, for example?

    I’d love to ask the mayor of Boston this question, in full view of the press, that is. It would be most interesting to hear how he answers.

  15. Jonathan Anderson July 21, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    “We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion… And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail”

    I love your exclusion (I mean inclusion) policy!!!

    “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult”

    And you are not discriminating mister mayor? Looks like this guy wants under the table payment.

  16. John July 21, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Wow that is pretty amazing that they were able to get that clear of an interpretation from old “Mumbles” Menino…he is usually not that easy to understand; I think that is partly why he keeps getting elected.

    In all seriousness, this sadly does not surprise me at all coming from my old home. Boston is an “open” city that is apparently closed to Christians…too sad.

  17. Megan Branch July 21, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    Wow. It just goes to further prove the state’s statistics: Occult on the rise, Christians leaving in large numbers, and people moving their vacations out of the Boston-area to stay away from him. Talk about hurting your people… by choosing the words of hate, you remove tourism, which generates jobs.

    No offense, someone needs to read Tomas Paine’s “Common Sense”… from cover to cover.

    • Dave Samson July 23, 2012 at 9:09 am #

      I’ve lived in Boston for the past five years, and have been a New Englander my whole life. I can tell you that nobody comes here for vacation to go to Chick-fil-A. (If it was Clam-fil-A that might be something different).

      All that said, while Menino’s words were unnecessarily inflammatory they were simply an expression of existing statute – Massachusetts generally, and Boston in particular, have exceptionally strong anti-discrimination laws. If (and I say if) there was any evidence that Chick-fil-A discriminated against LGBT people (or any protected class, for that matter), they could not operate here.

      Boston does have a notoriously complex process for getting permits for anything (liquor especially), and the result of that is that if a business even has a whiff of discrimination attached to it, it sometimes fails to get a permit in a timely way due to intentional (though not necessarily illegal) “processing delays.”

      More importantly though, Chick-fil-A wouldn’t be a financial success in Boston because it would be a really odd cultural fit. While Boston has many faiths represented here, religion is very much a private rather than public matter. In fact, I would argue that for Boston, that is the approach to tolerance that seems to work for us: we readily tolerate seeing churches next to mosques next to temples next to a Christian Science Reading Room next to a New Age crystal shop – as long as what’s being practiced and taught inside of those edifices never actually spills out into the public square.

      In this way New England is still much like our namesake across the pond: religion in 21st century public life is something that is meant to be seen, not to be heard.

      • Gary Bell July 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

        I’ve not been to every American city. However, of the ones I have visited many times, Boston is the one that stands out as the most closed-minded in my experience. It is an equal-opportunity discrimination machine. Any decent Concierge can send you to the “(fill in the blank) only” area of town. Hard to fathom people live there voluntarily. The Mayor is well qualified to preside, it appears.

  18. Mary Kamish-Bell July 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    This post is dishonest (at best) and an outright lie(at worst). The CEO was interviewed the same day the statement was released and he didn’t mince words when saying he would continue to fight against gay marriage. As a straight Christian, this is unacceptable. Equality is to be had by all.

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

      I don’t understand why you think the post is dishonest. Of course Chick-fil-a supports traditional marriage. Nobody’s suggesting otherwise. It’s well known that Chick-fil-a gives to groups that support traditional marriage. It does not therefore follow from that fact that homosexuals are treated any differently than anyone else at Chick-fil-a. They are welcomed and served just like everyone else. You don’t have to agree on the definition of marriage in order to serve someone a chicken sandwich with a smile and great service.

      • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

        Have people been claiming that Chick-Fil-A is refusing to serve gay customers? That doesn’t seem to be the objection here.

  19. Mike Singletary July 21, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    The quotes above are not that controversial, but you did not mention the part that is apparently what stirred up the most controversy. I still don’t have much of a problem with what he said, but I think if you’re going to engage dialogue on this subject, you should provide all the information. Here’s the quote:

    “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.”

    • Mike Singletary July 21, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

      And I understand that the Baptist Press interview and Ken Coleman interview are separate, but as soon as the BP article hit, media outlets like the Washington Post jumped all over it while highlighting his radio remarks. Because the two were so quickly connected, I don’t think we can easily say that it was only the BP article that started the pushback.

      • Mike Singletary July 21, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

        Sorry, I would edit all this into one comment if I could.

        Is is not true that the entire reason Cathy did the BP interview was for damage control from the Ken Coleman interview? Is so, why not reference that?

        • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

          I don’t know where you’re getting that from.

      • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm #

        I disagree with your chronology. The BP article set all of this off. After the Los Angeles Times quoted the BP story, a host of other major media outlets picked it up with some of them reaching back a month earlier to the Ken Coleman interview.

        The point is that in neither interview did Cathy say anything about discriminating against homosexuals! He merely reaffirmed a Christian view of the family. It’s astonishing to me that people think such remarks are out of the bounds of reasonable discourse.

        • Mike Singletary July 21, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

          I understand your point. And I really don’t think what he said is out of bounds. I’m just saying that the Ken Coleman interview quotes played a bigger part in this than what you are giving them, and they could have been referenced in the original article.

        • Meagan Singer July 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

          The issue is not that such views are out of the bounds of reasonable discourse – and I agree that it is ridiculous to declare a city a chick-fil-a free zone. However, most of the commentary out there is merely letting others know, as chik-fil-a has done now with both speech as well as money, their opinions.

          People have the right not to patronize businesses where the profits will go towards a cause they do not believe in or adamantly oppose. People also have a right to tell everyone else why they aren’t patronizing said businesses.

          I love chik-fil-a sandwiches. I hate this political/religious stance (the stance, not the people). My heart wins over my stomach; thank goodness, my waistline will thank me.

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

      Cathy didn’t mention “God’s judgment” in the Baptist Press interview that started all of this. See my comment above.

      • Mike Singletary July 21, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

        Right, but there was little delay between the release of the BP interview and the media’s splicing together of the two. So its not accurate to say that it was primarily the BP interview that sparked the controversy. When people were getting reports of those comments, they were getting them along with one’s from the radio interview.

        • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

          I still hold the mayor responsible to understand the full context of all the comments. It’s irresponsible, and, dare I say, unAmerican to ban a Christian business from a city based on sensationalizing media reports. If he didn’t know better, he should have.

          • Dave Samson July 23, 2012 at 9:19 am #

            Menino isn’t banning Chick-fil-A from Boston because it’s a Christian business. He’s affirming in public that the views of Chick-fil-A’s seniormost executive (which, given that it is a family-run privately-held company, mean that his views are the views of Chick-fil-A) are incompatible with the culture of the City of Boston. And he’s right. Earlier this spring a Rite Aid in Allston went out of business, largely because Rite Aid does not provide Plan B over the counter. Wallgreens does, CVS does, and so they’re still thriving in the same neighborhood while Rite Aid had to depart.

            None of this was done by the City, mind you – but Bostonians are an active bunch, and we understand that sometimes the only way to change minds is to hit a business where it counts: the bottom line.

            So while Menino may be tipping his hand that a Chick-fil-A application in Boston would be met with some likely unnecessary “processing delays,” he’s also probably giving Cathy some sage business advice: any business with a point of view that some people are less worthy of basic human rights (like marriage) than others is simply not going to succeed in Boston.

            • Aaron Campbell July 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

              There is already a Chick-fil-a in the Burlington Mall just north of Boston. My family and I go there all the time. It is one of the top mall units in the country. To say that CFA would do anything but make a killing in Boston is ridiculous. Give them the same opportunity to succeed or fail as any other company.

              • Dave Samson July 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

                First of all, Burlington isn’t Boston. Chick-fil-A might do fine in the suburbs, but it’s just not going to work in the city. The growth market for quick service food in Boston proper lately has mostly been seen by chains focused on smoothies, vegan food, or establishments that serve traditional fare but do so with locally-sourced ingredients. The only KFC in the city is out in Allston, and they don’t seem to be doing a booming business.

                Secondly, this would certainly be a bad year for Chick-fil-A to move to the spot they’re talking about – right across from City Hall. Given this controversy, you really think they’d be successful a stone’s throw from the South End?

                • Aaron Campbell July 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

                  They should be given the opportunity to fail or succeed, though, which the mayor has said he will fight against because of his desire to be inclusive.

                  And, yes, I think they would be a huge hit. KFC and Chick-fil-a are not in the same league. Even if your premise that only smoothie and vegan loving eaters live in Boston were true, you still have a large number of commuters that come in from the suburbs to work in Boston that would eat there.

            • Josh Dear August 17, 2012 at 1:01 am #

              Dave, above you posted –

              “So while Menino may be tipping his hand that a Chick-fil-A application in Boston would be met with some likely unnecessary “processing delays,” he’s also probably giving Cathy some sage business advice: any business with a point of view that some people are less worthy of basic human rights (like marriage) than others is simply not going to succeed in Boston.”

              Who said anything about any group of people being “less worthy of basic human rights”? Dan Cathy said no such thing – he simply declared that their company supports the traditional view of marriage, and that the term “marriage” isn’t eligible for redefining. “Marriage” was not “invented” by mankind – it was established by God at the outset of creation. Therefore, only he can redefine it.

              As with every other “right” which we enjoy in America, there are certain basic criteria which must first be met in order for you to claim (authoritatively) that you have engaged in some particular action. For example, you can’t suddenly start calling high school graduation “childbirth” (regardless of how much they might have in common), simply because they are two VERY different events!

              It really doesn’t have anything to do with “rights” – it has to do with definition of terms. A homosexual relationship can never be a “marriage” – NOT because either person in the gay couple doesn’t have the exact same rights as every other individual, but simply because neither one has actually taken the steps to fulfill the definition of a marriage.

              At any time, a gay couple is just as free to seek legitimate marriage partners of the opposite sex as anybody else, but unless they actually do this, they will never truly be married to anybody, regardless of what a court might declare. For a court to rule that we must start calling gay unions “marriage” would be very similar to saying that we must start calling the sky “ground”, and the clouds “zebras”. It might make SOME “persecuted minority” very happy to do something so ridiculous, but it would not in any way alter the fact that the blue expanse above us is ACTUALLY the sky (regardless of what name we suddenly choose to give to it).

              Again, it’s not a matter of rights – it’s purely a matter of basic definitions. The definition of “marriage” will never authoritatively change unless God is the one who changes it – and since the Bible is a closed book, the chances of that happening prior to the imminent return of Christ are quite slim.

  20. Amy Bolick July 21, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    If you’re going to make criticisms, please at least tell the whole story. Dan Cathy did not simply say that his company is “pro-family;” he also said that America is “inviting God’s judgment” by supporting marriage equality. (link: http://tinyurl.com/7xjjmbj)

    Not only that, but Chic-fil-a openly provides financial support to organizations that lobby against marriage equality. Also, they’ve supported Exodus international, an organization that, until recently, claimed that they could help LGBT people become straight through reparative therapy. They have since admitted to having a .01 success rate in such endeavors.

    Im not saying you have to agree with the measures that have been taken against Chic-fil-a. I’m not even sure how I fel about them. I’m just saying that before you start making judgments, at least make sure you know the whole story.

    With love in Christ.

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

      The report that you link to is incorrect. It says that Dan Cathy was interviewed “this week” by Ken Coleman. That is wrong. It was a month ago, and the context was totally different. Cathy didn’t mention “God’s judgment” in the Baptist Press interview that started all of this. See my comment above.

    • Janet Webb July 21, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

      The irony is that there are many companies that openly support stances that are on the other side, such as pro-gay marriage and many other issues. Are the same people saying that these companies should be allowed to support these issues or stances? Of course not. If Chick-fil-a doesn’t serve gay, black, Hispanic, short, or whatever other types of people, call that discrimination and say that’s wrong. Otherwise, they’re entitled to belief and support whatever they wish. Our current president is supported by former and unrepentant terrorists who now teach in one of our colleges. Have these people called that wrong? It’s the hypocrisy that’s the issue to me. If you preach that everyone should be tolerant, you need to practice what you preach. And you can believe something is wrong without discriminating against those engaging in that practice, whatever it is.

      • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

        You’d be hard-pressed to find a community that forces businesses to discriminate against gay people. However, many communities see orientation as a protected class. This is why you don’t see the converse of this situation.

        I have no idea what you’re going on about in terms of terrorism, though.

      • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

        “The irony is that there are many companies that openly support stances that are on the other side, such as pro-gay marriage and many other issues. Are the same people saying that these companies should be allowed to support these issues or stances?”

        Well, not the same people, but Starbucks, JC Pennies, Archie Comics and a host of other companies who have supported LGBT rights (not just marriage). Shoot, McDonalds they maintained a relationship with the National Gay & Lesbian chamber of Commerce.

        As I have said in numerous posts in this thread, I respect the right of anyone to choose where to spend their money. But let’s not pretend it is one side doing this.

  21. Jim July 21, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    I guess you could throw in a Doug Wilson quote or two to really get things going…. ;)

    • Jaime Thornton July 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

      LOL

  22. Dan Wright July 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    This is really disappointing. As a Christian it seems to me that you would hold yourself to a higher standard of honesty. You know full well that it was Cathy’s remarks in the interview that were brought to light AFTER the BP article that sparked the real outrage. Yes, the interview was earlier but after it got reported by a gay rights website, that was when this blew up. Yes, there was some minor blowback after the BP, but it was the “inviting God’s judgment” that really got it going. Anyway, that last paragraph is nothing but a lie and as someone who proclaims Christ, I think you should be ashamed for so blatantly and manipulatively misrepresenting the truth. But, silly me, I’m still surprised whe Christians don’t live up to a higher standard. You did yourself no service here, Mr. Burk. The best thing to do would be to admit your closing was inflammatory and misleading. We all make mistakes.

    • Denny Burk July 21, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

      A lie? That would imply that I intentionally misled people. I can assure you that’s not the case. If there is something inaccurate here, I’m all ears to know what it is. I am more than willing to stand corrected if there’s an error of fact. Which part is inaccurate here?

      Before answering, please read my earlier comment.

      • Dan Wright July 21, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

        I think plenty of these comments have pointed out the dishonesty of your entire post. You didn’t tell the whole story and slanted it in a purposefully exagerated way. The last sentence is obviously an attempt to make it sound like Mr. Cathy’s remarks were simply about being pro-family. Which you know is not the entire truth. It’s just all sad – this political brand of Christianity. Either you aren’t as smart as you seem or you are purposely being inflammatory. Either way, it saddens me and makes me think less of you as a critical thinker and reflection of Christ. I expect those things of Bryan Fischer and the AFA folks. I just thought, before this post, that you weren’t on that same level. I may have been mistaken, though I appreciate your willingness to respond, I think you know deep down that this wasn’t a great moment for you. I hope you’ll do better.

        • John Wood July 21, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

          Gentle there Dan, just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean you get to tell people how they seem to fail your standards.
          John 3:17

          • Dan Wright July 21, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

            Thanks John. I added more to try and be less caustic. I got worked up. :) I try to not let my righteous indignation get the best of me, but sometimes it does.

        • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 12:26 am #

          Dan, I still haven’t heard from you where I committed an error of fact. Mr. Cathy’s remarks were in fact “simply about being pro-family.” Yes, that has obvious implications for the gay marriage issue. But that’s not my point.

          My point is that Cathy wasn’t banging the drum against gay marriage in the BP article. If anything, his point was understated. I think the same is true for the earlier interview in which he mentioned “God’s judgment.” In neither interview does he mention homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. Rhetorically, the point was understated. Are we really at a place when a pro-traditional marriage statement delivered in respectful tones should lead to this kind of ostracism? That’s the question I’m trying to press home. People who believe in traditional marriage are being treated more and more as extremists and dangerous no matter how respectful and tolerant they really are.

          Cathy said nothing about discriminating against homosexuals in either interview! In fact, homosexuals are not treated any differently than anyone else at Chick-fil-a. That’s what makes the mayor’s comments so off-base. Everybody is welcome at Chick-fil-a. If you don’t believe me, take a gay friend to your nearest franchise and see what happens. They’ll say the same thing to him that they say to you when they serve you, “It’s my pleasure.”

          • Dan Wright July 22, 2012 at 1:10 am #

            Denny,
            We’ll just have to leave it rest where I think you were dishonest and you obviously do not think so.

            You’re added sentence to the article kind of makes the last paragraph inaccurate now – because Mr. Cathy did mention ‘redefining marriage’ as part of this flare-up. But it’s your blog and if you’re good with it, that’s all that matters. It doesn’t make me respect you more, but hey – it’s the internet – you don’t need my approval. I’m sorry if my feedback was unwelcome or harsh – it’s just my opinion.

            To your point about banging the drum- some would consider donating millions to those groups who are against gay marriage – some of which their only purpose is to deny gay marriage – as at least playing a pretty mean bass in the band – forgive me, I’m horrible at metaphors. But are you at least capable of understanding why gay people would consider giving money to those groups a hostile act? (Just as those on the anti-gay side consider redefining marriage a hostile act.)

            You’re gingerly walking around the “god’s judgment” stuff, but that’s okay, I understand why. In our society today, more and more it’s hard for someone to talk about “inviting God’s judgment” without seeming like the Westboro Baptist folks. It’s a very similar theology – they just come right out and say it a little meaner.

            Here’s what baffles me. You can call it being “pro traditional marriage” all you’d like, but the express purpose of the “pro traditional marriage” groups is to outlaw gay marriage. That’s it. Some of them do other things – like run political campaigns and collect billions from elderly people through the AFA radio network, but the “pro traditional marriage” is all about outlawing gay marriage. So at least be honest that it’s what they want to do. Personally, I say if you don’t believe in gay marriage, I’d suggest not getting gay-married. Pretty easy fix.
            Anyway, I feel silly that this bugged me as much as it did. I had a different impression of you from some things a family member had shared about some of your work – and those things may have been more to my liking – but this just griped the heck out of me today because it seemed so opportunistically orchestrated in a dishonest way. Obviously, I’m not the only person who saw that – but again – it’s the internet, we’ve all probably got too much time on our hands.

            As to Chick-Fil-A, they’ll get a bump in business in some ways and take a hit in other ways. Personally, I’m not a fan of theirs and won’t be. I don’t think they’re kicking gays out of the door – they like money too much -but if you donate to groups whose purpose is to fight gay marriage, then it’s the right of those on the other side to throw a little bit of a fit – just as One Million Mom’s blew a gasket over Ellen becoming spokesperson at JC Penney’s.

            I’d say there’s plenty more to come, unfortunately. However, I do prefer to be less bombastic in life than some of my posts calling you out, so for the tone, my apologies. Heat of the moment. I’ll try to do better. If I had a blog, I’d be such a comment deleter, so good for you.

            • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 8:15 am #

              I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I will say, however, that when you accuse someone of being dishonest you are attributing motives to that person–as if I’m trying to deceive readers intentionally. I think you need to allow for the possibility that perhaps there’s nothing more here than a difference of opinion. You think including the judgment quote was absolutely essential to the argument that I’m making, and I don’t. There’s no need for accusations of lying or dishonesty. It’s just a difference of opinion.

              • Dan Wright July 22, 2012 at 9:50 am #

                To me it hinges on whether you knew of the judgment quote before you posted. If so, then I stand by my opinion about the lie and dishonesty part. To leave it out was a choice you made, and a dishonest one. And you can tap dance around technicalities all you’d like. However, if I’m wrong and you didn’t know of that, then I’d reconsider and take back the accusation part and say the misrepresentation of the truth wasn’t on purpose.

                • Ryan Szrama July 22, 2012 at 10:11 am #

                  Dan, the persistence you’re showing in attempting to convince Denny that he really did lie (in spite of the “we’ll just have to leave it rest”) is matched only by your ability to completely overlook the actual remarks by the mayor of Boston. Since you’re seeing comment notifications in this thread, let’s just recap:

                  “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population… And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail… unless they open up their policies.”

                  Have you reserved any umbrage for this man who hasn’t bothered to research anything beyond a “Chick-fil-a discriminates against gays” soundbite? This is a mayor, representing his city, castigating a company that employs thousands of people (and sends them to college) for their discrimination and closed policies. But what in the world is he even reacting against? Comments for traditional marriage / against gay marriage? Can a business owner not have his opinions and yet still serve everyone without discrimination, like Chick-fil-a actually does? Maybe unemployment just isn’t a problem in Boston, but I’m sure tasty chicken is.

                  You’re extremely quick to sacrifice Denny on the altar of his own professed faith, but here when the brother attempts to demonstrate how he disagrees with your interpretation of a blog post (yes, a blog post) you unload on him until you have the last word ensuring him that he has sinned and grossly misrepresented Christ.

                  Allow me to sloganize your campaign for you: “Denny lied, chickens died.” And we can continue to ignore what the mayor is saying or the media are reporting, because after all, Chick-fil-a discriminates against gays by (at worst, according to your admission) donating to competing political causes. Donors to such groups and seeing God’s judgment on a nation in its embrace of practices the Bible condemns really should disqualify someone from doing business in Boston.

                  • Dave Samson July 23, 2012 at 10:11 am #

                    A business owner can certainly have his opinions, but he also needs to understand that when it’s a family-owned, privately-held company, his personal views become the views of Chick-fil-A. If the CEO of GE says something ridiculous about a minority group, the Board of Directors can fire him and honestly say his views never represented the views of GE. But when it’s the head of a privately-held company, there’s effectively no difference between the opinions of the CEO and the opinions of the company.

                    Ask yourself a couple key questions, and for all these questions assume you were aware of the comments about family life recently made by Mr. Cathy:

                    – If you were gay and currently employed at Chick-fil-A, would you feel comfortable being open about your sexuality with your coworkers and your boss?

                    – If you were gay and were in a relationship, would you feel comfortable dining at a Chick-fil-A with your partner, including some modest hand-holding (making it clear to everyone in the restaurant that you are not just roommates or friends)

                    If the answer to either of these questions is no, then Chick-fil-A in fact has absolutely no business doing business in Boston. Discrimination isn’t simply a matter of having a policy written explicitly denigrating a group, it’s about creating (or allowing the creation of) a culture that categorizes some human beings as less human than others (and thus less deserving of basic human rights, like marriage).

                    Freedom requires responsibility, including the responsibility of a business owner to understand that his words carry far more weight than most. His public statements of opinions directly create the culture at his business, and how that culture is crafted has real consequences. In this case, one of those consequences is that his business is not welcome here in Boston.

                    • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

                      You are conflating gay behavior with sexual orientation. It’s a common mistake.

                      Gay behavior, like nearly all sexual behavior between consenting adults, is protected under Lawrence v. Texas. Orientation is not protected by law in all places yet, although it is in Massachusetts and Boston.

                • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

                  Dan,

                  Those aren’t the only two options, and I think your judgment is premature and uncharitable. It may be tedious to lay it out this way, but here it goes. I saw the headlines about Chick-fil-a throughout the week last week, but didn’t pay much attention to them until I saw the story in the Boston Herald about Mayor Menino. I believe that was the first story that I delved into, and it included the “God’s judgment” remark. After that, I decided that this story would be worth commenting on, so I went back and did research on what got this whole ball of controversy rolling this past week. It immediately became clear that it all began with the Baptist Press story that was then passed on to the wider world via The Los Angeles Times. Neither one of those stories included the “God’s judgment” remark. I read I don’t know how many other reports related to this story.

                  By the time I sat down to write, I focused mainly on the one story that started it all–the BP article. When I sat down to write, I wasn’t even thinking about the “God’s judgment” remark anymore. I was focusing only on the story that started this whole imbroglio–the BP article. There was no intent to deceive. No subterfuge.

                  So, I was not nor am I now trying to hide the “God’s judgment” remark from anyone. I think it’s neither here nor there to the point I’m trying to make in this piece. It’s existence doesn’t mitigate the larger point that I’m trying to make–that even moderate pro-family voices are increasingly being cast as dangerous and unacceptable in the public discourse. When the Mayor made his statement, that growing intolerance then became a religious liberty issue, and that’s why I chose to write this.

                  If you think the “God’s judgment” remark materially undermines my argument, I disagree. It does not. That disagreement doesn’t make me a liar. It just means we disagree. You may think that the only explanation for its omission is a nefarious one, but that is where you are wrong. I’m laying things out as plainly as I know how. I knew about the “statement in advance,” I didn’t include it in my original article, and I wasn’t trying to deceive anybody (which should have been proven to you when I edited my article yesterday to include it after all!).

                  If there’s something else to say about this, I don’t know what it is. So I guess I’ll just leave it at that.

                  Blessings,
                  Denny

                  • Dan Wright July 23, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

                    Your words —
                    “You don’t even have to mention homosexuality or gay marriage. All you have to say is that you are pro-family, and certain municipalities will exile your business. Welcome to the brave new world of tolerance.”

                    Not really honest. Are you really going to say that all this is because Chick-Fil-A simply said, “we’re pro-famiy?” No one who has a lick of sense would believe that to be true. But – oh, well. We’ve hashed it out enough. Be well.

                    • Denny Burk July 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

                      Dan, Of course that statement has implications for gay marriage. Everybody knows that Chick-fil-a is for traditional marriage and against gay marriage.

                      My point is to highlight the fact that even respectful, understated comments in favor of traditional marriage are being treated as if they’re Westboro Baptist Church hate speech. In other words, people are trying to exclude traditional marriage supporters from the realm of rational conversation. They are treated as pariahs, the moral equivalent of the KKK. That’s what is worth noting here.

                      What makes this story noteworthy is that this has passed from being mere social stigma to official public policy in the city of Boston. And there are a growing number of cities that would have done the same thing.

                    • Dan Wright July 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

                      Denny,
                      What you just wrote would have been a fair and honest appraisal, HOWEVER, the original blog post was NOT like that. It was a cheap shot at being inflammatory and misleading (IMO).

                      I understand your points and intent. Yes, it is becoming more and more unacceptable to voice ‘anti-gay’ opinions in public and in business. I get all that. I just really, really think you did it horribly in the original blog post.

                      On a sadder note, it’s too bad that anti-gay marriage forces have hi-jacked the term ‘pro-family’ so much so that these days, any time anyone hears the words ‘pro-family’ they think of it as just a code word for being anti-gay.

                    • Denny Burk July 23, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

                      It’s very telling in your last comment that you think that’s the pro-family people’s fault.

        • Kyle Smith July 22, 2012 at 4:21 pm #

          Dan Wright,
          You call yourself a Christian, I agree with Mr. Cathy words. God will Judge and your lucky he hasn’t brought his wrath upon us. I have readed every quote that Mr. Cathy has said. Guess what he can give his opinion if he wants even if you do not agree. You need to read your Bible again, because I promise you this, God coming for you and I soon, and there will be judgement. Equalty isn’t in Jesus language.

          • Takami Takahashi July 23, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

            HA! Haha! Thats the most christian thing I’ve ever heard. Equality isn’t in Jesus’ language. All are supposed to be equal in the eyes ofGod. You are basically just a suprematist. And yes I do agree he can express his opinion but if he doesn’t think there are consequences to his words then he’s pretty delusional. God or Jesus don’t give you the moral high ground. Your actions and words are what define you not your faith.

            • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

              Takami,
              Quote:
              All are supposed to be equal in the eyes ofGod.

              Where in the bible does it say that? I’ve read the bible several time and I’ve never read that.

              On the contrary, I have read throughout the bible how God hates sin, how God will punish unrepentant sinners, and yes…those who’s sin is sexual.

              Nobody is taking the moral high ground…just stating what the bible says…

              The fact is…all Christians are ONLY Christians by God’s grace and mercy…we aren’t more deserving than anybody else, we deserve to be punished in Hell….just as the other poster said….

              But God….who is rich in mercy….deemed to save us through no merit of our own; and that’s what the other poster left out….that if one repents of their sin….and puts their faith in Christ’s substitutionary death…they they may live eternally with God and escape punishment.

              If that’s true (and I believe it is) it would be the height of hatred for my fellow human being to keep that to myself.

      • Dan Wright July 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

        And I hate to end an evening on such a negative note as above, so let me add a little. I do mean to shame you a little into owning up to either framing the article in an inflammatory way or being a little lazy in your prep. It’s not my place to do so but I suspect you have the integrity to bend. Ideally you’d write a correction or pray on doing an update to give the whole story within the article. Otherwise what happens is this post makes the political rounds on facebook and drags you into the gutter with Bryan Fischer and his ilk. I noticed the post from a friends Facebook and let you have it there as well. And because I had heard some nice things about you previously, it saddened and frustrated me. As someone who embraces the message of Christ, I TRY to be more loving than I am caustic. So, take all that for what it’s worth. I can understand your frustration with the mayor, but I don’t think that excuses your article. And all the dodging. I guess my question is, “did you know about the interview comments before you wrote this? If not, then update. If you did know, then I think you have to own up to it, take a knock for not being as thorough and fair as you should be and move on. Regardless, I wish you well personally, and again, I appreciate the willingness to engage in the conversation. Alright, I can go to sleep feeling I ended on a better spirit. :)

        • Ryan Szrama July 22, 2012 at 12:16 am #

          Safe to assume you’re pretty tore up about the treatment Chick-fil-a is getting in the media and from the mayor of Boston, too?

  23. Anna Graceo July 21, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    I think Chic-fil-a should just out right say we do not support gay marriage and we do take measures against it but we don’t believe we are better than homosexuals. We are all loved by God despite our sins and that is why we will not discriminate against LGBT people who come as customers to our business. I feel like he should just out right say it and people may respect him more for it. As Christians, we should not be afraid to say homosexuality, fornication, stealing, murdering, etc. is wrong. Be bold and just say it!

    • Robert Pavich July 22, 2012 at 3:27 am #

      Anna,
      Quote:
      We are all loved by God despite our sins and that is why we will not discriminate against LGBT people who come as customers to our business.:
      End quote

      He did say that.

      Quote:
      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.

      End Quote

  24. Andrew Lindsey July 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Whoever reads the slanted L.A. Times article that started this controversy, which Dr. Burk linked above, will see that ONLY the Baptist Press [BP] interview that Dr. Burk quoted in the body of his post was mentioned.

    It was on the basis of the L.A. Times article that the original controversy erupted.

    It looks as if other media outlets realized that the reaction to the L.A. Times article seemed disproportionate to the actual quotes from Mr. Cathy that were found in that article, so they began to splice the material from the L.A. Times article with quotes from the month-old Coleman interview in order to make the reaction make more sense.

    If this is correct, then the sequence of events is L.A. Times article, quoting BP->initial backlash->other articles/news stories, quoting BP and the Coleman interview->more backlash.

    So, I don’t think that Dr. Burk was dishonest, though perhaps the Coleman interview should be mentioned (and now it has been, in these comments!), as it is now part of the discourse. However, the Boston mayor’s comments seem so ignorant [seriously: “whatever the h*** the name is”?] that it does not much matter whether he’d heard of the Coleman interview or not.

  25. Nate Fremont July 21, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    Honestly, this is to be expected. Jesus said that all who follow Him would be persecuted and defamed, just like He was. No matter what Cathy says, he will come under fire simply for being a believer. You know what? Let everyone who wants to boycott Chic fil a. Business is booming for them, I believe as a direct result of their firm stand on God’s Word. Let Satan come and attack. My God is stronger.

    • Ryan Abernathy July 22, 2012 at 8:21 am #

      If you think this is persecution may I suggest you move to China or Iran and experience some real persecution. I think it might change your perspective.

      People like Dan Cathy have the right to say and believe what they want. Other people have the right to do the same if they disagree. As a Christian, pastor, husband, and dad, I will continue to patronize Chick Fil A because I appreciate their food, their kindness, and their customer service. If others choose not to because of Mr. Cathy’s statements, so be it. As Christians, we are wasting our time trying to convince people who do not know Christ that living like they do know Him is possible.

      Instead of attacking them and whining because they do not “agree” with us, we should spend our time praying for them, lovingly sharing the Gospel with them, and befriending them so that they can see the love we have experienced in Christ.

      Unfortunately, that’s too hard for the average, lazy “pseudo-Christian” in America. It is much easier to whine about our “rights.” If the judgment of God comes to America, it will start with the Church in America, not those who support homosexual marriage or practice. 1 Peter 4:12-19.

      • Dave Samson July 23, 2012 at 10:20 am #

        Hi Ryan,

        Could you do me and my fellow disagreers-with-you a favor? If you must pray for us, fine, but I would ask that any prayers originally intended for me be rerouted to the victims of state murder in Syria and natural disaster in Haiti, respectively. They certainly need it far more than I do.

        And secondly, please desist sharing any gospel with us, lovingly or otherwise. Believe it or not, most of us nonreligious folk are literate (and in fact, many if not most of us grew up in one church or another!) – which means we are broadly aware of the content of the New and Old Testaments, and can certainly decide on our own whether or not we find the content compelling.

        So, you might consider showing us the same respect we show you: I agree not to show up unnanounced at your house questioning your faith, and I also agree not to redirect a casual conversation at a barbecue/PTA meeting/block party towards my opinions on organized religion. And I’d very much appreciate if you’d do the same.

        Regards,
        Dave

        • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 10:36 am #

          Dave,
          though your comment wasn’t directed at me, I’d like to chime in:

          You said:
          Quote:
          So, you might consider showing us the same respect we show you: I agree not to show up unnanounced at your house questioning your faith, and I also agree not to redirect a casual conversation at a barbecue/PTA meeting/block party towards my opinions on organized religion

          Fortunately, this is America and those having opinions that run counter to your own still are able to voice them. (just like you just did here)

          See the irony?

          • Dave Samson July 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

            Theres a subtle but important difference between sharing your opinion publicly under the First Amendment and actively trying to convert someone from one perspective on religion to another. If you want to write a blog, or a letter to the editor, or stage a rally in front of City Hall about why everyone should become a devout Christian, that’s one thing and I’ll vigorously defend your right to do so.

            But it’s another matter when it becomes targeted at any one particular person. I fully expect that as I go through my day to day life as an American I’ll encounter many different perspectives and worldviews with which I disagree – and indeed, that’s what makes this country great. But I think it’s reasonable to expect that when I’m just trying to enjoy my Saturday morning or my kid’s ballgame, that I don’t have to constantly justify my view on religion to people who are actively trying to get me and my family to believe something that we are strongly opposed to.

            Think about it this way – Planned Parenthood has canvassers in almost every major American city, standing out on the sidewalk trying to raise money from strangers. I’m okay with that (and would be okay with it if the Catholic Church had its own canvassers doing the exact same thing). But, I’ve never heard my doorbell ring and found a PP canvasser actually asking me for money at my home (if they do that in other cities, I don’t support that). And I’d ask that folks in the religious community consider operating the same way – be as loud and vocal as you possibly can be in the public square, advocating for others to join you. But tone down (or ideally, forego) the practice of targeting individuals for conversion.

            • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

              Dave Samson:

              I’d like to address your comments:

              Quote:
              Theres a subtle but important difference between sharing your opinion publicly under the First Amendment and actively trying to convert someone from one perspective on religion to another. If you want to write a blog, or a letter to the editor, or stage a rally in front of City Hall about why everyone should become a devout Christian, that’s one thing and I’ll vigorously defend your right to do so.
              End quote

              Glad to hear it…freedom of speech is protected as my lawful right…bravo.

              Quote
              But it’s another matter when it becomes targeted at any one particular person. I fully expect that as I go through my day to day life as an American I’ll encounter many different perspectives and worldviews with which I disagree – and indeed, that’s what makes this country great.
              End Quote

              Why? Because you say so? Why do you draw this arbitrary distinction just because you don’t like it?
              Thankfully the law protects this type of speech also.

              Quote:
              But I think it’s reasonable to expect that when I’m just trying to enjoy my Saturday morning or my kid’s ballgame, that I don’t have to constantly justify my view on religion to people who are actively trying to get me and my family to believe something that we are strongly opposed to.
              End Quote

              Gee….When was the last time you had to “constantly justify your view of religion when you were watching your kids ballgame exactly? Why make up hypothetical situations?
              Why are you now trying to get me to modify my behavior as a Christian to not talk to you one-on-one? Why can’t I say with equal validity that it’s reasonable to expect that I be allowed to talk to you one on one?…you’re drawing arbitrary distinctions that are nothing more than preferences…vanilla or chocolate.

              Quote
              Think about it this way – Planned Parenthood has canvassers in almost every major American city, standing out on the sidewalk trying to raise money from strangers. I’m okay with that (and would be okay with it if the Catholic Church had its own canvassers doing the exact same thing).
              End quote

              Thankfully your preferences don’t override the freedom of Americans to speak what they believe even if you don’t like it.

              Quote
              But, I’ve never heard my doorbell ring and found a PP canvasser actually asking me for money at my home (if they do that in other cities, I don’t support that). And I’d ask that folks in the religious community consider operating the same way – be as loud and vocal as you possibly can be in the public square, advocating for others to join you. But tone down (or ideally, forego) the practice of targeting individuals for conversion.
              End quote

              So what? I’d rather everybody agreed with my opinion but who cares? The fact is; our mandate IS to tell you what we believe the truth to be and if you don’t like it…you are free to reject it…but that doesn’t change the fact that we are commanded to do it.

              I don’t see the point.

              • Dave Samson July 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

                Robert, my whole point is simply that while free speech is great and should be celebrated (i.e., while I think the Westboro Baptist Church protests represent some of the lowest forms of humanity, I acknowledge they have the right to do what they’re doing), there is something fundamentally different about the freedom to publicly advocate for your views versus individually targeting particular people for conversion.

                I think the point I’m trying to make is similar to how the world of sales and marketing works. When I see an ad on TV for a product, I may or may not find it interesting but I don’t usually get mad that I had to experience the ad at all. However, when a telemarketer calls just as I’m sitting down to dinner with my family, more often than not I give him or her a piece of my mind. Similarly, if I chose to step onto a car lot I’d of course expect someone to come up to me and try to sell me a car – but if I’m just hanging out at the park, I’d be pretty annoyed if a salesman kept pestering me about the 2012 Ford F-150.

                You may be right from a legal point of view that at the end of the day this is just a preference of mine – I certainly don’t think there’s anything illegal about trying to convert someone’s religion (unless it happens in a public school where minors would be the targets of conversion). But I do think it would make for a more civil and pleasant society if harassing individuals to accept someone else’s mythology as their own were understood to be off-limits.

                • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

                  Dave Samson,
                  Quote:
                  Robert, my whole point is simply that while free speech is great and should be celebrated (i.e., while I think the Westboro Baptist Church protests represent some of the lowest forms of humanity, I acknowledge they have the right to do what they’re doing), there is something fundamentally different about the freedom to publicly advocate for your views versus individually targeting particular people for conversion.
                  End Quote

                  Free speech is great unless it’s something you don’t want to hear in a way you don’t want to hear it. Fair enough…you’ve made that clear several times now.

                  Quote:
                  I think the point I’m trying to make is similar to how the world of sales and marketing works. When I see an ad on TV for a product, I may or may not find it interesting but I don’t usually get mad that I had to experience the ad at all. However, when a telemarketer calls just as I’m sitting down to dinner with my family, more often than not I give him or her a piece of my mind. Similarly, if I chose to step onto a car lot I’d of course expect someone to come up to me and try to sell me a car – but if I’m just hanging out at the park, I’d be pretty annoyed if a salesman kept pestering me about the 2012 Ford F-150.
                  End quote

                  You keep stating your preference in different ways…I got it the first time…you don’t like people telling you about their faith…got it. Fortunately for me (unfortunately for you I guess) we are free to do that for now and I’m commanded to tell you what I believe, and so I do it even if you don’t like it….which I’m assuming you don’t.

                  Quote:
                  You may be right from a legal point of view that at the end of the day this is just a preference of mine – I certainly don’t think there’s anything illegal about trying to convert someone’s religion (unless it happens in a public school where minors would be the targets of conversion). But I do think it would make for a more civil and pleasant society if harassing individuals to accept someone else’s mythology as their own were understood to be off-limits.
                  End quote

                  And I think it would make for a more pleasant society if those who didn’t believe as I do had enough respect for my view to not call it mythology but it seems that neither of us is 1005 satisfied with the way things are.
                  REPLY

                  • Dave Samson July 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

                    Nothing personal with the “mythology” semantics, but to be frank I can’t really respect any institution that makes human beings feel as though they are “commanded” to do anything other than pursue happiness and treat others as they’d like to be treated. There are some religious folks I’ve met who do act that way, but most unfortunately seem to spend all their time focused on the more extreme elements of their faith – including those that infringe on the happiness and peace of others who have no interest in hearing about what they choose to do on Sunday (or Friday or Saturday, whichever sabbath you observe).

  26. Shaun DuFault July 21, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

    Sorry about not giving my full name, did not fully see that in the comment policy.

    Will have to repost the other comments made on the other article. Anyway, I heard about the Chick-Fil-A thing and told my family we are going out for lunch. Nothing says support more than having a good spicy chicken sandwich made southern style.

    I will always have an affinity towards Boston, their style of politics on the other hand….

  27. Irene Sullivan July 21, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    Let the intolerant gay community ban Chick-Fil-a. We’ll all ban Boston, and pray for them, rather than go there or do business there!

  28. Joshua Jones July 21, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    The fact that these comments were made as a representation of chick-fil-a as opposed to Mr. Cathy’s personal opinion completely opens them up to criticism or boycott from specific individuals or private groups. A supporter of same sex marriage has equal right to boycott them as a pro family supporter to patronize them for their bold stance, however, the idea that a municipal government would make it difficult for a business to operate because of this belief is an unquestionable 1st ammendment violation and while this was clearly political grand standing for a special interest vote, the reality of a mayor with blatant disregard for the constitution is egregious.
    As far as the information presented in the article, I feel the most wholistic means of reporting is to cite both comments, but seeing as this is an editorial the author has the right to present the information as they see fit as long as they do not report falsifications. It is the readers responsibility to determine the validity and motivation of the opinion being presented.

  29. Evan Rogovin July 21, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

    So Chik Fil A doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. I get that. However, do you not see the irony that they will use money from gay customers to donate to causes that oppose said customers’ right to marry. And I will ask you what I ask all: how does two people of the same sex, who love each other getting married AFFECT YOU? Answer: it doesn’t. It won’t harm you, it won’t harm god and it won’t harm Jesus. As a Jew myself, I’m pretty sure Jesus loved all equally. DONATING MONEY to oppose such love seems pretty Anti-Christian to me. This is the true irony you are ignoring.

    • Pedalingparson July 22, 2012 at 10:30 am #

      “However, do you not see the irony that they will use money from gay customers to donate to causes that oppose said customers’ right to marry.” So I can use your logic and apply it to Home Depot, J.C. Penny, Macy’s et al since they all give generously to gay causes with money from patrons who hold to the biblical role of the family.

      As far as the scorched earth line of reasoning that supposes there is no harm from same-sex marriage. Considering it further legitimizes the next stage of the sexual revolution and the attack on gender, sexuality, and marriage it will, and already is, having an incalculable effect on society and culture at large. Only time will bear this out more fully. By then it will be too late. Study history and the works of J.D. Unwin on the demise of societies that allow sexual license to become the order of the day.

      Since you are a Jew you should know that Leviticus 19:18 “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Falls in the context of holy living and falls right on the heels of Lev. 18 with all the sexual proscriptions from incest, to homosex, to bestiality. The point is, what they did in their personal lives ultimately affected others even if they weren’t aware of it. Greater tolerance of sin always leads to greater degrees of debauchery and everybody pays in one way shape form or another. The one who truly loves his neighbor lives life with the recognition that his/her actions do affect others in a myriad of ways both seen and unseen. To otherwise is the definition of selfishness.

      Since you see no problem with same-sex marriage, let me ask you: If marriage is no longer an exclusive union between one man and one woman for a lifetime, than who is to say it must be limited to just 2 people? After all, if marriage is only about love and being consensual than any relational combination that meets that criteria should qualify–why discriminate against those polyamorists and minor-attracted persons who meet the relativistic criteria you have established? Who are you to exhibit such intolerance and hatred? Further, if marriage is an unqualified right, why have the state involved at all? Why not just allow matrimonial free-for-all? If you are really freedom loving and seek true happiness, why have marriage at all? Just scrap it and let the chips fall where ever.

      As for Jesus, He categorically reaffirmed (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10;2-11) the Genesis 1;27 and Genesis 2:23 ideal for marriage: gender distinction–one man and one woman, as well as monogamy in a one-flesh union. Add to this his statements against sexual immorality of all forms (Mark 7:21; Matthew 15:19), where Jesus classifies “fornications” plural, meaning any form of sexual deviancy that strays from the one-man-one-woman mandate of Genesis 1 and 2. When the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus in John 8 He told to “Go and sin no more”. He never condoned, nor did He affirm sexual sin of any sort. To maintain that silence is approval would then mean that incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia are given the green light by Christ as well. For He never directly addressed these perversions by name.

      As for your definition of love, it fails to take all of God’s attributes into account. God is a vast complex of attributes to include justice, holiness, righteousness, truth, honesty, grace, mercy, and yes, love. But His love cannot be defined divorced from His other attributes, for that would lead to an arbitrary love that has no basis in reality. So God’s love is a just love, a righteous love, a holy love, and a truthful love. So Jesus never loved sin, condoned sin, or affirmed sin. In fact He told many to “Repent” (turn from their sin).

      It is easy to parrot PC slogans and trite PC cliches, it is an entirely different matter to think through them biblically and theologically.

      • Robert Pavich July 22, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

        Pedalingperson,
        In your reply to the Jewish poster Evan you said:

        Quote:
        Since you see no problem with same-sex marriage, let me ask you: If marriage is no longer an exclusive union between one man and one woman for a lifetime, than who is to say it must be limited to just 2 people? After all, if marriage is only about love and being consensual than any relational combination that meets that criteria should qualify–why discriminate against those polyamorists and minor-attracted persons who meet the relativistic criteria you have established?

        End quote

        I hate to bring this up but a California Representative (Senator Mark Leno) already has; he’s introducing legislation that would exceed the “two humans” limitation to “any number of parents” in any combination, straight or gay or otherwise. The bill is SB1476

  30. Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 12:08 am #

    Hello all.

    Several commenters have complained that I didn’t include in the original post a past quote from Dan Cathy about “God’s judgment.” As I argued above in various interactions in the comments, I still don’t think that including that statement is necessary. It certainly was no part of the original Baptist Press article that started this whole thing off. Nor was it a part of the Los Angeles Times report that took this story national. Nor was the statement as radical as some have made it out to be.

    Nevertheless, in order to make nice with the good people who take time to read this blog, I’ve added a sentence to the original post in the second to last sentence of the third paragraph. I’m not sure it adds a lot, but here it is:

    “Other media outlets have begun digging up past statements by Mr. Cathy, including one from last June about ‘God’s judgment’ on those who wish to redefine marriage.”

    Hope that helps. Blessings to all!

    Denny

    • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

      I don’t see how it isn’t necessary. You seem very caught up on the timeline. But all of the more moderate & liberal posters have been very clear that it was the earlier line coupled with the anti-gay donations that have caught people’s ire. Pretty sure 100% have said that, but now you are telling them what they were upset about.

      For whatever reason, the quote about his “god’s judgement” went unnoticed until it got dug up and included with the other quotes. There are plenty of business owners that are Christian and plenty of gay people who are Christian – that’s not what has people upset. It’s the donations and the more inflammatory lines from the earlier radio interview.

      At this point, I am really unsure why you won’t just admit that maybe you misunderstood which comments were upsetting people and potentially updating your post to include mention of the “god’s judgement” quote and donations.

      Instead the update you have added is about how the company is supposedly being “ostracized” because the Henson company has decided they have different company values – the same right to state their values and associate their merchandise with companies they want to.

      Everyone has misunderstandings. But it does come off as disingenuous when you refuse to update your post with relevant facts. But do update it calling the Henson Company following their values “ostracizing” while acting like Chick-fil-A donating it’s money in ways reflecting Cathy’s values is completely innocuous.

  31. Clark Bunch July 22, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    Don’t you hate it when people argue against stuff you didn’t even say? And I’m talking about Burk not Cathy. Poor guy, I feel you buddy.

    Awesome post, thoughtful insight.

  32. Tim Nissly July 22, 2012 at 3:28 am #

    Even Rogovin, I’m curious how telling Jesus that the way He created something is wrong is in anyway “Un-Christian?” Who are we to tell him he got it wrong? No body is trying to deny anyone love. There are millions if not billions more $ given to pro gay lobbyist that there are the donations for traditional definitions of marriage. And the Gay addenda will not stop until everyone is forced to agree with them. They will not be satisfied with ‘equality’ anyway. Dominance is their play and they are getting it for sure.

  33. Pedalingparson July 22, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    Hi Denny,

    It seems to me that your detractors are swatting at a gnat and swallowing a camel in the process. For only a year ago Chick-Fil-A was in the cross hairs of militant gay rights advocates for serving lunch to a group from Family Research Council who were hosting a marriage seminar that had nothing to do with homosexuality. They all got on change.org and went ballistic. All to no avail. One year later we right back at the same place.

    The questions not being asked are: 1. Has Chick-Fil-A ever fired anyone for being gay?; 2. Has Chick-Fil-A ever refused to serve someone in one of their stores for being gay? The answer seems to be a resounding “No” for if they had the media would have gone viral. It is a classic case of deconstructing what “discrimination” really is so that deviancy can be redefined.

    The bad news for those opposing Chick-Fil-A is that they have over 5 million likes on Face Book and climbing. Almost everyone I know is making it a point to go to Chick-Fil-A. Unlike J.C. Penny, whose stock has dropped since promoting the PC line, Chick-Fil-A is poised to see their stock rise! This boycott will have the opposite effect.

    • Robert Pavich July 22, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

      Pedalingperson,
      You have been spot-on in your comments and I and my family and everyone that I can get to agree will patronize Chick-fil-A as much as possible in support for their courage in the face of the intolerant Tolerance Police.

      • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

        Hey, Robert. Thanks for commenting. Would you mind using your first and last name from now on. A lot of people miss this in my comments policy, but I require first and last names. Thanks!

        • Robert July 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

          Denny,
          I did…it’s there; Robert Pavich.

          Can you not see it?

          • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

            I filled your last name in for you in the above posts.

      • Kyle Smith July 22, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

        Amen
        I love Chick fl A . I will support them all the way. As for gay people, I hate the SIN not the Sinner.
        Good post Mr Burk

    • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

      Good points. Thanks for the comment. BTW, my comments policy requires commenters to use first and last names. Thanks!

    • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

      Pedalingparson,

      That’s how these things typically go. The percentage of people on either side who will actually boycott over a company’s position is rather small.

      Sometimes the threat of perception will force a company to change tact. But Chic-fil-A is a very popular company. They will lose some business because of this, but I doubt very much. It’s not as if Cathy was caught molesting kids. It will be no different than when the anti-gay side tried to boycott Starbucks. The percentage of people who were going to stop getting their favorite coffee because Starbucks’ supported marriage equality is infinitely small.

      Really, what we are talking about is the right of people to vote with their wallets. It’s a right both sides have. But it very rarely has much of an effect unless the company does something heinous.

  34. Reg Schofield July 22, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    Cathy is a Evangelical Southern Baptist , so why are so many shocked he supports a Biblical world view when it cones to sexual ethics. As to to the comment about Judging America , God is actively judging all sin as we speak , just read Romans ,

    From my knowledge Chick-Fil-A has not refused to serve a gay person. They do not have a post on the door saying no gays allowed etc… Sure they may hold that they are in sinning but I’m sure they would hold the person who walks through their doors who is living together is sinning etc… In other words they serve anyone who walks through their doors.

    Since I live in Canada we alas have no Chick-Fil-A , but if we did I would still go and go more often .

  35. Jason Kates July 22, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    “We’re an open city.” Unless we don’t want your kind.

  36. Ray Defreses July 22, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    My family and I dined at Chick-fil-a for lunch yesterday. It was packed, as usual. We will continue to eat there, and may in fact do so more frequently, the more we hear about a “boycott”.

  37. Robert Pavich July 22, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    Ray…as I mentioned above…so will my family and friends!!

  38. Ray DeFrese July 22, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

    Sorry, Denny. I missed the note about your new comment policy.

  39. Robert Mayfield July 22, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    The comments have moved so far into parsing and wordsmithing that many commenters have missed the point of the article: the intolerant attitude of the mayor of Boston toward a company that does not discriminate in who it serves; gender, race, or sexual preference are all served at Chick-fil-a. I think the only people they don’t serve are the shoeless or shirtless!

    As a private company, CFA has the right to give money to organizations that its management and shareholders choose to support. JC Penny and Macy’s have the same right. Dallas, Atlanta, and Nashville are very “tolerant” of these companies and does not bar these companies from their cities because of their support of organizations that do not support traditional family values.

    The bottom line is that the mayor of Boston is an intolerant politician and is discriminating against CFA.

    • Chris Hauck July 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

      If the article were only about the Mayor of Boston denying entrance to his city (which he hasn’t actually done, only talked about in a speech, which politician’s on both the left and right do) I would be inclined to agree with you. As much as I vehemently disagree with Cathy’s beliefs and donations, he has every right to incorporate in Boston.

      However, that’s not all that Denny wrote in the article. Even if your post came before some of the very biased updates, he still wrote this:

      “…That doesn’t sound very controversial to me. It just sounds like a Christian businessman answering a question about his faith. Have we really come so far that even these words are intolerable to the tolerance police? Well, apparently the answer is yes. Activists and sympathizers with the gay rights movement are castigating Chick-fil-a and calling for boycotts”

      Most of the comments I have read here haven’t been about if Boston should block CFA. Most commentors on both sides appear to agree that would be wrong.

      Most of the discussion has been directed towards the section I referenced as well as the omitted sections in the article about the quotes and donations that actually caused the ire.

  40. Pat Petersen July 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    You fail to mention that Chick-fil-a has donated nearly $2 million dollars to anti-LGBT organizations, and by doing so they are sending a clear message to the public. So no, not really ironic. Either way it is a sign of the times that discriminating against gays is not socially acceptable anymore. And it is also no surprise that discrimination against gays is associated with Christianity because it was Christians that started the bias and it’s Christianity that keeps it going. Boy Scouts of America, Westboro Baptist Church, LDS, the owners of Chick-fil-A, the Republican Party… The list goes on. You are simply on the wrong side of history, sir. The sooner christians realize they don’t run the show in this country, the better.

    • Denny Burk July 22, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

      I thought everybody knew that. It’s no secret that Chick-fil-a is pro traditional marriage.

      • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 1:05 am #

        It is a surprise. I had no idea they supported women being owned by their husbands, but only of the same race. I thought they were supporting the modern definition of marriage from the ’60s to the ’90s, where women were equal to men and interracial marriage was legal, but same sex marriage was not.

        It is much scarier if they actually support the traditional subjugation of women and the traditional segregation of the races.

        • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 10:40 am #

          Chris H,

          Quote:

          I had no idea they supported women being owned by their husbands, but only of the same race. I thought they were supporting the modern definition of marriage from the ’60s to the ’90s, where women were equal to men and interracial marriage was legal, but same sex marriage was not.

          It is much scarier if they actually support the traditional subjugation of women and the traditional segregation of the races.

          Just FYI. The answer is that they don’t believe this straw man representation that you’ve provided.

          • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

            Well Robert, that is entirely the point. The term “traditional marriage” is itself a straw man representation.

            Obviously, I do not believe that Dan is against interracial marriage or thinks that wives are the property of their husbands. However, “traditional marriage” for thousands and thousands of years was a man owning a woman of the same race.

            Any notion of marriage being about love, equal rights between two people or people of different races marrying is very, very modern.

            Hence my point that the “traditional marriage” Dan is advocating only existed for ~30 years from Loving v Virginia until the late 90s or early 2000s depending upon what you wish to call the start of modern gay marriages.

            • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

              Chris H,
              Once again you’ve misrepresented the biblical marriage standard and the belief of Dan Cathy.

              Another straw man and I’m sure at this point that you don’t have but a surface level understanding of what the bible teaches on this subject given your comments in these two posts so far.

              Have you ever read the bible all the way through to see what it says about how people should behave and husbands should behave in reference to their family or have you gotten your second hand info from the internet?

              • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

                Robert, yes I have. I have gone to church since I was a kid. Went to a Catholic grade school & junior high and a Jesuit high school. My mother is a priest. So, yes, I understand the bible quite well.

                I am also guessing we have very different interpretations of it.

                But that is beside the point. If you want to say that Dan supports the “[his religious denomination]’s biblical marriage,” I won’t disagree with you. He clearly supports his denominations biblical view.

                My point was about the phrase “traditional marriage.” And you really can’t argue that the the definition of marriage allowing for women to have equal rights and people of mixed races to marry, while denying gay people the right to get married only existed for roughly 30 years. All of those attributes are very modern and not traditional at all.

                • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

                  Chris,
                  Quote:
                  Robert, yes I have. I have gone to church since I was a kid. Went to a Catholic grade school & junior high and a Jesuit high school. My mother is a priest. So, yes, I understand the bible quite well.

                  end quote

                  Surprising since your comments didn’t seem to reflect an in-depth knowledge of it.

                  Quote
                  I am also guessing we have very different interpretations of it.
                  End Quote

                  I’m guessing we would…but I fail to see how that would be relevant and I see you agreed with that statement below.

                  Quote
                  But that is beside the point. If you want to say that Dan supports the “[his religious denomination]‘s biblical marriage,” I won’t disagree with you. He clearly supports his denominations biblical view.

                  End quote

                  No. I’d say that Dan’s comments are derived from the traditional view of marriage, i.e. one man cleaves to one woman. (They also might coincide with his denomination’s view but I don’t know.

                  Quote
                  My point was about the phrase “traditional marriage.” And you really can’t argue that the the definition of marriage allowing for women to have equal rights and people of mixed races to marry, while denying gay people the right to get married only existed for roughly 30 years.

                  end quote

                  How does the following definition have anything to do with a woman’s rights (i.e. voting, in the workplace, etc.)

                  “Marriage is between one man and one woman”

                  I fail to see how women getting the right to vote, getting more equitable pay for the work that they do and those types of things has any bearing on what the traditional definition of marriage is.

                  As far as a mixed race marriage, the bible is clear; we are all one race. Period, end of discussion.

                  IF men made it illegal for two people of differing skin color to marry then they’d be in the wrong.

                  As far as denying gay people the right to marry…like I said. The traditional marriage (as outlined in the bible) is between one man and one woman. I agree…that idea is VERY modern.

                  Quote:
                  All of those attributes are very modern and not traditional at all.

                  End quote

                  Like I said…you are conflating a few different things in one paragraph.

                  • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

                    No. My theology disagrees with yours, there’s nothing in my previous comments that even discuss the Bible. You simply do not like that my conclusions are different than yours.

                    Everything else you said is trying to isolate one historical aspect of marriage. But it is a fact that for most of recorded history women were the property of men in the marriage. And people only married people of the same race. Those are all aspects of traditional marriage.

                    So yes, Dan supports his religions current views on marriage (the Bible had subservient wives and polygamous marriages), but not “traditional,” as I doubt he supports women being owned by men or races being segregated – as were the case for the vast majority of time in the history of marriage.

                    • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

                      Chris,
                      Quote:
                      No. My theology disagrees with yours, there’s nothing in my previous comments that even discuss the Bible. You simply do not like that my conclusions are different than yours.
                      End quote

                      Not at all. I said that from your comments, it appears that you haven’t done in-depth study.

                      There is a difference.

                      Quote:

                      Everything else you said is trying to isolate one historical aspect of marriage.

                      Nope. I just reiterated that marriage (as defined by God and revealed in the bible) is only one man and one woman.

                      Quote
                      But it is a fact that for most of recorded history women were the property of men in the marriage. And people only married people of the same race. Those are all aspects of traditional marriage.

                      end quote

                      No…those are aspects of mens perversion of God’s design of marriage.

                      I’m not confusing what men do…and have done, with what the Bible teaches about the bond of marriage.

                      Quote
                      So yes, Dan supports his religions current views on marriage (the Bible had subservient wives and polygamous marriages),

                      Actually what you must have meant here is that the bible RECORDS HISTORICALLY polygamous marriages and the culture of Israel 4500 years ago was that the wife was more subservient than we are used to.

                      Not that it “teaches” either.

                      This is another reason that I say that I don’t think that you’ve studied this in depth, these comments are very surface-level sort of comments. (no offense intended)

                      Quote:
                      but not “traditional,” as I doubt he supports women being owned by men or races being segregated – as were the case for the vast majority of time in the history of marriage.
                      End quote

                      When I use the word “traditional” I mean that marriage is defined as one man and one woman…the fact that men have had concubines, adulterous affairs, polygamous marriages, and other things throughout history doesn’t change that.

                      Many history books record these things, and the bible does too.

                      Don’t confuse the mere recording of an event with God’s approval of it.

                    • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

                      Ok Robert, as long as we are clear you are talking about your denomination’s biblical definition of marriage. That I understand. However, trying to pretend their is some mythical, “traditional” definition of marriage simply doesn’t hold up.

                      And I fully respect your religion’s right to only honor the marriages they see fit with regards to your religious ceremonies.

            • Don Johnson July 23, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

              Song of Solomon challenges that idea, when it is understood in cultural context.

              The idea of race in the 1st century was a lot different than in the USA at any time.

    • Wade Choate July 23, 2012 at 10:12 am #

      You sir, are already on the wrong side of history. One day you will realize this.

      Psalm 2

      1 Why do the nations rage,
      And the people plot a vain thing?

      2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
      And the rulers take counsel together,
      Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,

      3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
      And cast away Their cords from us.”

      4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
      The Lord shall hold them in derision.

      5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
      And distress them in His deep displeasure:

      6 “Yet I have set My King
      On My holy hill of Zion.”

      7 “I will declare the decree:
      The Lord has said to Me,
      ‘You are My Son,
      Today I have begotten You.

      8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
      The nations for Your inheritance,
      And the ends of the earth for Your possession.

      9 You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron;
      You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”

      10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
      Be instructed, you judges of the earth.

      11 Serve the Lord with fear,
      And rejoice with trembling.

      12 Kiss the Son,[b] lest [c] He be angry,
      And you perish in the way,
      When His wrath is kindled but a little.
      Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

  41. Steve Squires July 23, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    1. I live in Boston so this hits home

    2. The owner of Chick- whatever can say and conduct his business how he likes. The problem is that he can’t discriminate hiring based on someone’s sexual identity or preference. He doesn’t say that, but it comes out in his family run comments.

    3. His comments on divorce, comments he actually made, should be racing more ire. Married to his “first wife” and so are others. Good for him – glad it worked out for him. The reality is that people being remarried and staying committed is just as much a reflection of and representation of the KIngdom of God as being married only once. I didn’t say divorce is, I said a second marriage working out and staying committed.

    4. People say here in the comments (including the author of the blog – now that one has a blog they have authority) that you don’t have to mention gay marriage or homosexuality to be attacked – all you need to do is be pro-family. I like to think I can read between the lines and that’s not “all he said.” It is what he didn’t say. I would respect him much more if he just came out and said “we don’t like the homosexual lifestyle, it’s anti-biblical, we won’t hire gays, and we proudly continue to state this whenever we can.” Instead he skirts the issue by not saying what he really thinks. What would really be gutsy and promote the evangelical agenda (which is mine by the way) would be to do that.

    This is, as usual, Christians overreacting to something that is semi-irrelevant. If you want to insure the free speech and rights of Christians I would suggest that we should stop whining about what the Chicken guy says and be braver to enter the public square with our own proactive agenda instead of turtling under the guise of a lame and not so veiled attempt at the left to not attack the Chicken guy, but to rile up Christians and make us look foolish like we usually us.

    They won – checkmate.

  42. Rob Gates July 23, 2012 at 10:22 am #

    I don’t get it…Why is it perceived as “wrong”, “mean-spirited”, “un-Christian” (and etc.), when Christians stand for biblical marriage ( one man and one woman), and in doing state that anything that deviates from God’s Standard is WRONG? Chick-fil-A is a privately owned company that has a right to express their opinions (America, remember?), and to donate their money to those organizations that reflect their religious beliefs. If someone is offended by that, then don’t eat at Chick-fil-A! As far as God’s judgment, I believe that Scripture supports that the judgment of God DOES come upon nations and people in response to their disregarding of God’s Word. I’m hardly in sympathy with the Westboro bunch (they’re nuts!), but that doesn’t mean we should ignore a theme that is so prominent in the Bible. Can a nation redefine marriage (in opposition to Scripture) and NOT face some form of divine justice (Romans 1:18)?

    • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

      Robert, the problem is that you are simply espousing your religious view. Other people hold different religious & secular views and vehemently disagree with you.

      You are 100% correct that Dan has the right to express his views and donate money from his private company as he sees fit. So then why don’t other people have the right to disagree with him and decide to spend their private money at restaurants they see fit?

      • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

        Chris,
        Quote:
        Robert, the problem is that you are simply espousing your religious view. Other people hold different religious & secular views and vehemently disagree with you.

        You are 100% correct that Dan has the right to express his views and donate money from his private company as he sees fit. So then why don’t other people have the right to disagree with him and decide to spend their private money at restaurants they see fit?

        End Quote

        I’m not sure which Robert you are replying to but we too (Christians have no problem with disagreement; and no problem at all with anyone spending their money any way they choose…

        Nope.

        What we disagree with is when “tolerance” is called for and then intolerance is exhibited when a Christian dares to voice his opposition opinion.

        We disagree when motives are ascribed to Dan Cathy when he’s gone out of his way to say JUST THE OPPOSITE to the public and has shown in his business practices that he DOES treat all employees and customers with respect regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference.

        We disagree with invective’s like “intolerant” or “discriminatory” or “hateful” are used when Dan has said nothing intolerant or hateful or discriminatory towards anyone.

        That’s what we disagree with. Not that anyone would voice their opinion of his position; it’s only that they be fair and accurate in their portrayal of his statements.

        • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

          I am failing to understand your definition of intolerance. No one jailed, hurt or took any rights away from Dan. People didn’t like what he had to say or how he was spending his company’s money and they decided to spend their money at another restaurant.

          In terms of what words were used in describing why they were choosing to spend their money elsewhere, that’s simply a matter of opinion. Many people see Dan’s actions as intolerant and discriminatory. As I have said below, using the word hateful may be unfair. But intolerant and discriminatory are perfectly fair for anyone who believe that gay people deserve the rights Dan is donating to prevent. You have the right to disagree, but these words did not simply come out of left field.

          • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

            Chris,
            If you are addressing me when you say:

            I am failing to understand your definition of intolerance. No one jailed, hurt or took any rights away from Dan. People didn’t like what he had to say or how he was spending his company’s money and they decided to spend their money at another restaurant.
            End quote

            I agree, the definition of intolerance is more than just voicing my disagreement. I was pointing out that those who support (for example) gay marriage or similar call frequently espouse how “tolerant” they are and call for tolerance in others but when some Christian has the never to disagree publicly, they call him intolerant…i.e. they aren’t actually tolerant of other views at all.

            If they agreed with you and I about the definition of intolerance….nobody would have called Dan Cathy intolerant, or that he was promoting hate, or that he was discriminating…but those words get thrown around a lot don’t they?

            Quote
            In terms of what words were used in describing why they were choosing to spend their money elsewhere, that’s simply a matter of opinion. Many people see Dan’s actions as intolerant and discriminatory.
            end quote

            And I think that they need to look up those terms to see what Dan has said and did and figure out some other words to use.

            Quote
            As I have said below, using the word hateful may be unfair. But intolerant and discriminatory are perfectly fair for anyone who believe that gay people deserve the rights Dan is donating to prevent. You have the right to disagree, but these words did not simply come out of left field.

            End quote

            Are you going to support my right to keep marriage as defined by the bible as “one man and one woman” or are you doing to be intolerant and discriminate against me?

  43. Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Sorry..that darn “form-fill-in” did it to me again…sorry for only listing one name.

  44. Mark Stout July 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    The article works from a false premise.
    Tolerance is allowing people of different opinions to have those opinions.
    Tolerance is compatible with the Golden Rule.
    Different opinions are healthy; I think a house looks sharp, my brother thinks the same house looks ugly. Neither of us are going to change the house (unless one of us owns it).
    When tolerance doesn’t work is when the Golden Rule is broken; I do not give equal weight to a persons “opinion” that they should shoot me and steal my TV and car. The author’s idea that ways of a criminal and a law-abiding citizen are equally valid is B.S.
    Chick-Fil-A made a bunch of mistakes: 1. Chick Fil-A’s executives talk as if people decide to be gay or lesbian; in fact, we are created the way we are by God. 2. Chick Fil-A’s executives talk as if contempt for the way that God creates people is somehow moral. 3. Chick Fil-A’s executives reject Christ’s command “Judge Not” but somehow claim to be Christian. 4. Chick Fil-A’s executives talk as if this bigotry is acceptable in the United States; in fact, today this foolishness is only accepted by the government of Iran. 5. The author states “Christian business owners are not longer allowed to express religious opinions in Boston..” False and irrelevant; Christian business owners are expected to follow Christ’s commands, pretty much everywhere except North Korea. Chick Fil-A’s owners do not operate as Christians. Chick Fil-A is being shunned and asked to leave the United States because of their contempt for God, Christ and Americans. Chick Fil-A needs to apologize or leave the United States. The author of the above steaming pile needs to apologize.

    • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

      Mark Stout

      I’d like to respond to your comment as there are more than a few false premises at work:

      Quote:
      The article works from a false premise.
      Tolerance is allowing people of different opinions to have those opinions.
      End quote

      Quote:
      Tolerance is compatible with the Golden Rule.
      Different opinions are healthy; I think a house looks sharp, my brother thinks the same house looks ugly. Neither of us are going to change the house (unless one of us owns it).
      When tolerance doesn’t work is when the Golden Rule is broken; I do not give equal weight to a persons “opinion” that they should shoot me and steal my TV and car. The author’s idea that ways of a criminal and a law-abiding citizen are equally valid is B.S.
      End quote

      Why make that arbitrary distinction? I’m sure if I asked that person who thought he deserved your car or TV that he’d disagree with you…why would your opinion be more valid that his?

      Quote:
      Chick-Fil-A made a bunch of mistakes: 1. Chick Fil-A’s executives talk as if people decide to be gay or lesbian; in fact, we are created the way we are by God.
      End quote

      The two aren’t mutually exclusive;
      A.) They do choose to behave in ways that are sinful according to God’s standard, just like me who decide to commit adultery and steal.
      B.) They are created with that proclivity…just as I am created to be be sinful. I’m created with the ability and proclivity to sin by committing adultery, stealing, lying, and all manner of things…If I say “You made me this way therefore these things are excusable!” is that a good excuse? Of course not.

      Quote:
      2. Chick Fil-A’s executives talk as if contempt for the way that God creates people is somehow moral.
      End quote

      Of course; By definition whatever God does is moral as He is the standard of morality. (In our worldview, I’m sure yours disagree but what Dan said is entirely consistent with his worldview)

      Quote
      3. Chick Fil-A’s executives reject Christ’s command “Judge Not” but somehow claim to be Christian.
      End quote

      What do you know about Christ’s command? Are you aware that Christ’s command is to judge with proper judgment? Not that you should never judge anyone.

      Quote:
      4. Chick Fil-A’s executives talk as if this bigotry is acceptable in the United States; in fact, today this foolishness is only accepted by the government of Iran.
      End quote

      Talk of bigotry? Who’s talking about bigotry? In fact, they said just the opposite; going out of their way to remind everyone that they do not discriminate against anyone. The bible’s command is to love everyone as they are created by God and Dan Cathy follows that command.

      Quote
      5. The author states “Christian business owners are not longer allowed to express religious opinions in Boston..” False and irrelevant; Christian business owners are expected to follow Christ’s commands, pretty much everywhere except North Korea. Chick Fil-A’s owners do not operate as Christians. Chick Fil-A is being shunned and asked to leave the United States because of their contempt for God, Christ and Americans. Chick Fil-A needs to apologize or leave the United States. The author of the above steaming pile needs to apologize.

      End quote

      Not sure what this even means…it seems like you haven’t studied the bible in depth, you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is just general character assassination.

  45. Tammy Luke July 23, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    I see all the comments on how Chick-Fala, is so bad because they support Christ and is against Gay Marriage. Now saying, they have always been OPEN on the fact they are a Christian based company, and follow Gods LAWS!! They give money to the the organization of preserving marriage between a man and a woman. THATS GODS LAW. But what is the difference in them and all these companies giving money to gay rights and abortions and all types of things WE don’t believe in. I say they are discriminating against Christians. Where is there Freedom to express their rights to Speak out for what they believe and support. IF CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THOSE RIGHTS ANYMORE AND THIS COMPANY, then NOBODY SHOULD HAVE THOSE FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS TO EXPRESS THEIR BELIEFS AND VIEWS. The Mayor of Boston is in Violation of the FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT. Remember the freedom of speech is for ALL, INCLUDING CHRISTIANS. I DO AND WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT CHICK FILA. If I have to I may file a complaint against all the social media who supports gay rights and abortions and who give money to these organizations and get petitions up against them. This may seem petty, but so does the outcry against CHICK FILA. I SUPPORT CHICK FILA

  46. Matt Anthony July 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Will the mayor ban existing Boy Scout troops? Not allow new ones?

    • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

      The Boy Scouts are not a public business. What the Boy Scouts are doing is sad but it’s within their rights because they are a private organization, not a business.

      • Matt Anthony July 23, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

        But the Boy Scouts are as public as a business. They solicit kids from the public. And they are as private as a private business. Why do you say they have rights Chic-fil-A doesn’t?

        • Evan C. Paul July 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

          Your assertions are absolutely incorrect. The Boy Scouts are a membership group; Chick-Fil-A is not.

  47. Sasha Anderson July 23, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    I’m a lefty, I disagree with the mayor, and I am boycotting CFA. If, as you stated, “he did not mention gay marriage,” then what do you believe he was referring to with “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

    Exactly. And that’s why I’m boycotting CFA.

  48. Reed Boyer July 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

    After the Southern Baptist Convention’s MANY and repeated calls for boycotts of the Walt Disney company because they treat “domestic partners” ALMOST equally for health insurance, I’m not surprised that “the irony:” hasn’t been noticed before.

    “The hypocrisy,” however, is still reeking on ice after decades.

    • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

      Reed,
      No Christian is objecting to boycotting any business establishment…that’s a good way for consumers to voice their displeasure.

      What we do object to is the misrepresentation of Dan Cathy’s beliefs and ascribing to him motives and feelings and actions that he doesn’t have nor exhibit…i.e. that he “hates” gay people or that he’s “discriminating” against them…etc.

      So…there is no irony to reek.

      • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

        Well “hates” is a very strong word and I won’t pretend to know what is in Mr. Cathy’s heart.

        However, we do know he at a minimum is against gay marriage and is donating to organizations who work to prevent that, as well as other rights for gay people. Now I understand you might share Mr. Cathy’s views and therefore don’t see denying gay people these rights as discrimination.

        However, other people do believe these are basic rights and therefore actively working to deny them is discrimination. You may personally disagree with this, but I would hope you could at least understand where the other side is coming from. Denying equal rights is discrimination. Hence, the interpretation of Dan’s statements is largely divided by whether the listener believes that gay people deserve the same rights in the public sphere as everyone else.

        • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

          Chris,
          Quote:
          Well “hates” is a very strong word and I won’t pretend to know what is in Mr. Cathy’s heart.
          End quote

          Well good for you…I agree, hate is a very strong word. Unfortunately anyone who disagrees that the traditional definition of marriage could be anyone in any combination is often labeled as “hating” those who are on the other side.

          Quote
          However, we do know he at a minimum is against gay marriage and is donating to organizations who work to prevent that, as well as other rights for gay people.
          End quote

          You mean organizations who are trying to uphold the traditional definition of marriage while others try to overthrow it?

          Quote
          Now I understand you might share Mr. Cathy’s views and therefore don’t see denying gay people these rights as discrimination.
          End Quote

          Just because someone wants something and I disagree, doesn’t mean I’m discriminating. By that reasoning you are now discriminating on my right to not have anyone change the traditional definition of marriage.

          Quote
          However, other people do believe these are basic rights and therefore actively working to deny them is discrimination.

          And vice-versa as I said above. They are actively denying me my right to a “man and woman only” marriage concept.

          Quote:
          You may personally disagree with this, but I would hope you could at least understand where the other side is coming from. Denying equal rights is discrimination.
          end quote

          I agree; but you seem to be putting homosexual behavior on the same level as (for example) race.

          Sort of like hijacking the civil rights movement and trying to incorporate sexual behavior into it.

          Quote
          Hence, the interpretation of Dan’s statements is largely divided by whether the listener believes that gay people deserve the same rights in the public sphere as everyone else.

          End quote

          I think they do. I also think that my right to an intact marriage definition shouldn’t be trampled on.

          • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

            Robert, as you try to nitpick every sentence, you completely miss the actual point.

            I am not trying to have a debate over gay rights here. That seems to happen all over the internet whenever gay issues come up.

            I am enjoying the conversation in this article, because it pertains more to beliefs and first amendment rights.

            Clearly, you disagree with at least some notions of gay rights – and you are entitled to do so. However, other people have a very different opinion. For people like myself, who believe gay people are entitled to equal rights, Dan’s actions constitute discrimination. You may disagree, as is your right, but you shouldn’t be surprised that other viewpoints exist outside of your own. And it should also not be a surprise that people who feel gay people deserve equal rights in the public sphere use the word “discrimination.”

            While it may not be fair to ascribe the word “hatred” to Dan, calling his actions “discriminatory” or “intolerant” is very logical for anyone who believes that gay people do deserve equal rights.

            • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

              Chris,
              You’ve stated the same thing in several different posts…over and over in slightly different ways.

              Yeah…I get it…people disagree with me…I get it.

              However that doesn’t make them right in their usage of the terms.

              Thanks for the conversation.

              • Tanner Walters July 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

                You said “They are actively denying me my right to a “man and woman only” marriage concept.”
                This is false. Advocates of gay marriage are by no means trying to make straight marriages illegal. If your concept of marriage is “man and woman” only, then marry a woman. No one is making the argument that you do not have the right to that marriage.
                However, the anti-gay marriage movement is trying to apply that concept to others who do not hold it to be true. The concept of a “man and woman only” marriage stems from religious beliefs, which have nothing to do with the federal government. Therefore, it can be said that that belief is discriminatory towards people who do not hold that belief.
                It is petty and almost juvenile to cry “discrimination” as if your way of life is being attacked by the way others choose to live.

  49. Larry Geiger July 23, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    “- If you were gay and were in a relationship, would you feel comfortable dining at a Chick-fil-A with your partner, including some modest hand-holding (making it clear to everyone in the restaurant that you are not just roommates or friends)

    If the answer to either of these questions is no, then Chick-fil-A in fact has absolutely no business doing business in Boston. Discrimination isn’t simply a matter of having a policy written explicitly denigrating a group, it’s about creating (or allowing the creation of) a culture that categorizes some human beings as less human than others (and thus less deserving of basic human rights, like marriage).”

    So what you are saying is that Boston discriminates against Christian family people (who, by the way understand the definition of the word “marriage”) who can’t have a quiet dinner with their children in a family friendly establishment? Obviously I’m not going to be eating much in Boston, which is just fine by me. Eventually there won’t be any families in Boston, but I’m sure that’s fine with them.

    “categorizes some human beings as less human than others “. No. It categorizes some human’s behaviors as inappropriate. It certainly doesn’t categorize them as “less human” because it’s certainly human to pursue behaviors that humans shouldn’t pursue. It may categorize their behavior as less righteous.

    • Andrew Jespersen July 23, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

      And why is what you consider “less righteous” to have a bearing on the personal freedoms of millions and millions of individuals?

      Within a church body there are plent of grounds for discipline, reproach, etc. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul writes that believers are not to judge those outside the church–that should be left to God. They are only to judge fellow members of the same church body, should the need arise. This, I feel, is where the modern church has gone wrong.

      • Robert Pavich July 23, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

        Andrew J,
        Quote:

        Within a church body there are plent of grounds for discipline, reproach, etc. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul writes that believers are not to judge those outside the church–that should be left to God.

        End quote

        Yes…not to say that they are saved or not…God is the only one that will decide that. But that doesn’t mean for a second that we don’t point out sin and implore men to repent…not at all.

        In fact, if you read back a few lines….you’d find Paul denouncing pagans for their deviant sexual practices….timely isn’t it?

        Quote
        They are only to judge fellow members of the same church body, should the need arise. This, I feel, is where the modern church has gone wrong.

        End Quote

        That may be so but you’d be wrong.

        Paul said (right before the part you quoted)

        “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.”

        I don’t know how Paul could have called someone “pagan” unless he made a judgement about their behavior and compared it to the biblical standard….do you?

        The fact is…we are to judge people on the basis of their behavior and if they are not “in Christ” we are to tell them the truth about sin and pray that they repent.

  50. Andrew Lindsey July 23, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    I’ve been taking my children to Chick-Fil-A for a long time, and have never seen Jim Henson Company toys in their kids’ meals. Can anyone verify if this “severed” relationship ever actually existed in the first place?

    • Justin Jensen July 23, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

      It just recently occurred. We had their toys last week and they pulled them within days.

  51. Andrew Jespersen July 23, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    Pretending that this much ado has only to do with this one, stand-alone statement is disingenuous. I’ve been aware for quite some time that Chick-Fil-A gives money to organizations that actively seek to withdraw and deny the same rights from homosexuals that heterosexuals enjoy. THIS is the full story. And THIS is why people are choosing not to support this business.

    Crying “intolerance!” from the religious right is a bit like pressing charges against someone because your broke your hand while punching their face.

  52. Carolyn Skiles July 23, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    Why does Freedom of Speech only apply to you?

    It seems to me that liberals and the media are constantly attacking and trying to intimidate those who are Pro Life, Pro Family, Pro God, Pro Country? Why is that? It sounds very intolerant to me. I don’t care what anyone believes and never attack them in any way because they do not believe the way I do.

    Why attack Chick- fil-a, a family owned company who exercised his freedom of speech. Isn’t that what this country was founded on? Isn’t that what our soldiers fight and die for?

    When you take freedom of speech away from a free people, you get communism. Is that tolerance? You might want to do a study on communism and see what you come up with.

    I’m not angry with those who think different from me and they should not be angry with me for thinking different.

  53. Tim Hunter July 23, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Hi there, Mr. Burk. I read the article, though I confess I scrolled past many of the above comments. There’s just too many of them. I just wanted to say a few things. One, while the words of “gay marriage” may not have appeared in this actual interview, this confrontation has been coming to a head for some time. Basically, people in the gay community were looking in this interview to see if Cathy would walk back what he had said previously in regard to “God’s judgment” and so on. Obviously, he did not – though in a kinder, gentler language than he had used before.

    I’m hung on this. I was raised in a christian home, but I am a gay man. Despite what anyone says, this is not a choice and I remained baffled as to how anyone could still possibly think that it would be. There are variables to every other facet of human existance, and to think that this one sole area would be exempt based on the interpretation of a 2,000 year old religious text is…well, it’s quite something.

    We seem to be at such an unfortunate impasse. On the one hand, I would want businesses to be free to hold whatever philosophy they wish to hold. On the other, children are literally dying of shame – shame that they are raised to feel based on these long-held attitudes. Most anyone would agree that if you told a child he or she was stupid and ugly repeatedly when they were younger, that child would grow up to believe it. Now imagine a child being told he is an abomination, immoral, perverted, crazy, unnatural and against “what God wants”, and unfit for society and unfit for heaven hereafter. Is it any wonder so many in this community grow up to have so many peripheral problems like substance abuse and depression, or that so many seek to end their own lives? THAT is why this all matter so much, and why people feel so compelled to take such vocal action against statements like these by Cathy.

    I really wish it didn’t have to be this way. It is the most unenviable position in the world to be unwillingly placed in the corner “against God”. It’s certainly nothing I ever would have asked for.

    Respectfully,

    Timothy J. Hunter

    • Denny Burk July 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

      Dear Tim,

      Thank you for your comment. For what it’s worth, I’m not one of those who believe that people choose their orientation. I acknowledge that there may be a variety of contributing factors to explain why people feel one way and not another. I believe my gay friends who have told me that they were born with same-sex attraction.

      I don’t like the impasse either. And it seems to be a genuine impasse. There are a host of reasons that Christians view the gay marriage issue as a religious liberty issue. When gay marriage becomes the law of the land, Christians are going to be put in some difficult situations. It’s already starting to happen (the Boston mayor is a case in point). Besides that, Christians believe for a variety of reasons that it’s in the interest of the common good to keep traditional marriage privileged in law, as it always has been. It protects women, children, and promotes the prosperity of the nation. I understand that the other side sees it differently than we do, and Therein is the impasse.

      Even if we can not come to agreement, I would hope that we could live together peacefully in a pluralistic society. But it’s beginning to feel like the other side is unwilling for that to happen. It feels like your side wants to annihilate Christianity’s 4,000 year old sexual ethic. Yet what the other side fails to acknowledge is that if we abandon what Christ has taught us about the meaning of our sexuality, then we’ve abandoned Christ altogether.

      I hope I’m wrong.

      Thanks for taking time to comment.

      Sincerely,
      Denny Burk

      • Chris Hauck July 23, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

        “Even if we can not come to agreement, I would hope that we could live together peacefully in a pluralistic society. It’s just beginning to feel like the other side is unwilling for that to happen. It feels like your side wants to annihilate the Christianity’s 4,000 year old sexual ethic. Yet what the other side fails to acknowledge is that if we abandon what Christ has taught us about the meaning of our sexuality, the. We’ve abandoned Christ altogether.”

        But therein lies the problem. Living together means sharing the same rights in the public space and being entitled to our own views. Right now we have one side that wants to prevent gay people from getting married, keep it legal to fire someone for being gay, ban open service in the military, prevent gay people from adopting, etc. And yes, I understand not every Evangelical/fundamentalist wants all of these. But all of these items are certainly in play.

        The other side simply wants equal rights. You’ve never seen any gay person attempt to eliminate Evangelical marriages, fire someone for being Baptist, ban fundamentalists from the military, etc.

        That’s what always makes these conversations so difficult. There’s no stopping gay marriage, as it will always exist as a religious sacrament for the denominations that celebrate it. However, one side in this argument wants to use to government to deny basic contract rights to the other side. And then if they are called intolerant, boycotted or face scorn, then they ask for “tolerance.” But frankly, they have no skin in the game.

        If you want more serenity as these issues are worked through, a fair solution would be to eliminate all marriages from people registered to religions that refuse to allow government marriage contracts for gay people. Similarly, people of those religions could be fired just for their religious belief in any state where gay people can be fired legally for being gay.

        Then with both groups being denied equivalent rights, both sides can sit down amicably and figure out a workable solution.

        • Steve Aronberg July 26, 2012 at 9:46 am #

          Thank you Chris for pointing out the obvious to the oblivious! Well said.

        • Bob Roberts July 27, 2012 at 10:13 am #

          I must be missing something because I was under the impression that there is no state where gay people can be fired legally for being gay. In fact, it is illegal to discriminate based on federal law. I believe the only place where that comes into play is in a church where the church wants the employees to model the beliefs of the church. But in those cases, a person living with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage would also not be hired. Or a person who is married to someone of the opposite sex and living by traditional family values wouldn’t be hired if they didn’t agree with the church’s Biblical views. That makes perfect sense because the church has a mission statement that would be thwarted by someone who did not believe in that mission statement.

          • Chris Hauck July 27, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

            Sadly this is not the case. The Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act has never passed.

            There are still ~29 states where a person can be legally fired for being gay from any type of job. Obviously religious institutions are exempted in all states as they should be.

            Again, this is where Denny’s plea becomes muddier. It becomes difficult to take requests for “civil discussion” seriously when one side actively works to prevent gay people from getting very basic protections for their right to work and freedom of speech (if a guy saying he saw a movie with his boyfriend when coworkers are sharing weekend stories is a legal reason to fire him, it is a chilling curbing of free speech).

      • Tim Hunter July 23, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

        Hey there, Mr. Burk!

        Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. The thing is, from what I can see, Christianity already IS in a difficult situation – and it’s not going to improve until we come to some sort of reconciliation. And despite what you might fear (and I can understand from the heated rhetoric why you might come to see it that way), I don’t think the gay community is completely “unwilling to let that happen”. Well, for one thing, I’m IN that community and that’s not what I would want to see happen at all.

        It isn’t just an “us or them” situation. I’m not the only one who suffered under the conflict between Christian ideology and the gay issue. My parents did as well. Their upbringing left them completely unprepared to handle a situation like mine.

        What I think really needs to happen is a reexamination of just what is being discussed in the Bible and its place in the context of history. For example, consider Sodom and Gemorrah. Lot offered up his daughters to the mob at his door. How many of us in this day and age would freely – honestly – feel OK with doing that? The difference is in how women were viewed in society at that time. That same sort of difference in perception might also apply to people like me, don’t you think? I just don’t think that people in that ancient time could have had an appropriate concept of what sexual orientation really is – as something far deeper than merely behavior. (And for the record, I just hate the term “homosexual” because it puts that “sexual” right in there, and I think it skews people’s reactions. My affection for those of the same sex are more profound than that. It is love, a genuine spiritual attraction. I could find myself in a relationship with someone like a paraplegic who where sexual relations are out of the equation and be no less “gay”).

        Also, and I hate that I can’t remember the exact name of this particular group, but I’ve read that sexual activity was a part of the religious activity of a cult supposedly inhabiting those towns. So, one might argue, it wasn’t even just the literal sexual behavior that was going on, but that it was being done in the worship of another god.

        Lastly, do remember that this wouldn’t be the first time that people’s interpretation of scripture turned out to be in error. Do consider Galileo, for example. I don’t think acknowledging the earth is actually round and not the center of the universe means people are rejecting God altogether – nor do I think this would.

        I think people should remember that there was the Law and then there was the Cross. That Cross cancels everything, and gives grace to whosoever…even me, just as I am. And believe me when I tell you I have prayed every prayer I could. I went beyond my knees, completely prostrate to the ground begging God to take me rather than let me continue to live if I was living against Him and leading others to do so. I am still here, and I am at peace.

        What has happened is that so many gay people, being told that there is no place for them as they are, have abandoned faith altogether. Far from destroying it, it might lift it higher. I don’t know. I just know that both sides have got to figure out how to approach this with the genuine aim to answer it as Love would answer it best.

        Respectfully,

        Timothy J. Hunter

        • Denny Burk July 23, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

          Dear Tim,

          I really do appreciate the friendly interaction. I wish that all of them could be this way.

          I am familiar with the revisionist interpretations of the relevant biblical texts. But in this case, I haven’t found those interpretations to be very compelling. I’ve written about it at some length here: http://www.dennyburk.com/Publications/themelios-35-2%20Burk.pdf.

          Thanks again for reading and taking time to comment.

          Blessings,
          Denny

        • Denny Burk July 23, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

          P.S. I’m happy to discuss these things or keep the conversation going if you’d like.

          • Tim Hunter July 24, 2012 at 10:09 am #

            Dear Mr. Burk,

            Hello! I will take some time to read what you’ve written. To be honest, it’s got some length to it, so I can’t guarantee that I’ll return to this particular discussion. I may and I may not. I have a tendency to get carried on the waves while surfing the net – and there’s every possibility there will be a newer, fresher article posted on this topic. Seems I’m a bit late to the party on this one as it is.

            Anyway, I can tell from your reference to “revisitionist interpretations” where we’ll part ways on our understandings. For me, I would have to say the Bible is already rife with revisitonist understandings, that it has gone through revisions over and over down through the ages, through different translations and so on, every since getting passed along orally at its start. I would also argue that Christianity does not own marriage. It is a legal arrangement that can carried out by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas for heterosexuals. It has exited prior to the onset of Christianity, and is available and practiced by those of other religions and even by atheists with a Justice of the Peace. That said, there should be provisions to any legal victory that allows exemptions to religious institutions who oppose.

            In any case, I recognized while looking over my earlier posts that while getting all operatic about the gay community versus the Christian church at large, I neglected to address the initial question, and that is: Should Chick-Fil-A cave on their position? It might suprise you that I would say: No. No, they should not. Personally, I have given up eating there – not as part of some grander boycott, but just because it burdens me to give my money to a company that will turn around and give money to groups that will work to suppress me and people like me. I just can’t see doing it, and surely you can understand it. It’s horrible, though…those sandwiches are delicious. Anyway…I still believe Cathy and company should have the right to their own position, just as other have the right not to do business with them. I would actually hope that Cathy sticks to his guns. It’s somewhat refreshing in this day and age that some people still will. That said, if it goes against the city’s (Boston’s) discrimination policies, I can understand them taking a stand against doing business with them. There’s often a price for maintaining your ground. I guess this is that price.

            What I hope for beyond boycotts is that Cathy – indeed all of you – would come to see who we really are.

            Respectfully,

            Timothy J. Hunter

            • Jim Talbot July 24, 2012 at 10:31 am #

              Timothy,

              I really appreciate your tone in this. I would ask that you consider viewing the below….particular the Q&A session.

              http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/

              It is a series of lectures by Doug Wilson entitled “Sexual by Design” along with an extensive Q&A session.

              He does a great job of describing how the Gospel relates to our collective condition – to be in desperate need of a Savior – as the fundamental issue…as opposed to those that fire our emotions.

              This fundamental issue goes beyond what type of sandwiches we prefer or our particular area of struggle.

              All The Best,

              Jim Talbot

            • Denny Burk July 24, 2012 at 10:39 am #

              Dear Timothy,

              For what it’s worth, here’s what I think you really are. A precious creation of God made in the divine image and uniquely formed to worship him. That’s who I believe God made all of us to be. I believe we are all sinners as well and stand in need of redemption. God has provided that redemption for us through His son Jesus who was crucified and raised for sinners like you and me. I believe that gospel message is for anyone who wants to receive it by repentance and faith.

              Thanks for the interaction and blessings to you.

              Sincerely,
              Denny Burk

              • Tim Hunter July 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

                Dear Mr. Burk,

                Hey! Thanks! I think the same of you. To the poster above you, Jim Talbot, I will look into your link.

                To you, Mr. Burk: I was right! There already is a new story branching off of this. Mike Huckabee has called for August 1st to be a National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. Sites like the Huffington Post are already bouncing their takes all around social media. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think there should be any complaining about the event. If one side can call for a boycott, the other can surely try to rally a show of support.

                My best to both of you.

                Timothy J. Hunter

        • Bob Roberts July 27, 2012 at 10:52 am #

          Timothy, I really appreciate your comments and your heart. I wanted to reply to your comments if I might. The Bible tells us that the Law is meant to show us that we can’t keep the law. We are all sinners and the wages of sin is death. The Cross was God accepting our penalty of death even though He had not earned it because He was sinless. So in that case, the Cross does give grace to whosoever…even you (as you put it). Just as you are. And even me, just as I am.

          But the Cross also frees us to pursue righteousness and to turn away from our sins. We don’t overcome them on our own…we overcome them after having received God’s grace through the cross. That doesn’t mean we immediately stop sinning. We never stop sinning. But when we sin, God’s spirit convicts us of our sin.

          I think the big issue isn’t whether a persion with gay tendencies can be saved or whether God loves them. Of course God loves them and they can be saved. Just like a person who is a habitual liar can be saved. Or a person who is living an immoral heterosexual lifestyle can be saved. Every person has sinful tendancies (we are born with a sin nature). But we all have different things that we deal with. Mine are different from yours but I still have sinful tendancies and mine are no less deviant or hurtful to me than yours are to you.

          In my mind, the big issue is that there are some sins that we as a society want to stop calling sin. Living with someone outside of marriage is one of them. Drunkenness (not drinking) is one of them. Sleeping with someone of the same sex is one of them. And there are many others.

          I don’t think that we as a church have done a good job of stating our position that you are welcome and that Christ loves you. A person with gay tendancies is just as welcome as I am welcome. But that gay person ultimately needs to deal with the sin the same way that I must deal with my sin. Denying my sin is not dealing with it any more than a gay person denying that living a homosexual lifestyle is sin is dealing with it. Christ paid for my sins and now that I am a Christian, the Holy Spirit can help me overcome my sinful tendancies.

          But that is where the conflict begins. I just called a lifestyle a sin. And even though I admit that I have my sinful leanings that I have to deal with, I will be labeled intollerant. But I am not intollerant. I have many friends who are gay. Every person has the right to sin (God gave them that right) and I am tollerant of that right to sin. But that doesn’t mean that sinning is good for the person.

  54. Blake Martin July 23, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Chick-fil-a has and always will be a Christian based company that stands for Christian values. I have grown up on Chick fil a. They are to be respected and admired.

    Chick-fil-a was to partner with Disneyworld several years ago to have their food all over the parks. It was a good deal for both sides. Truett came down for the final signing of the deal. If anyone knew anything about Chick fil a, you knew it was not open on Sunday. Disney failed to know their new vendor an assumed that since they were open 7 days a week then Chick fil a would be too. It came up on accident in that final meeting. Truett refused to budge. There was no compromise. He got up and they left. A very big business deal set aside. Some would have caved. Not Truett Cathy and family.

    Chick fil a will stand tall for Biblical principles until no one comes through their doors if that is where it goes. They will not bend. I for one will eat there as long as they are open.

  55. Blake Martin July 23, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Romans 1 teaches the following

    The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 NIV)

    Our country was founded on Biblical principles and its laws. As our country has moved away from these principles, so also our country moves out of God’s favor and blessing. Only by submitting ourselves as a nation to God’s ways may we ask for his mercy. As a Christian I will fail and I will sin but I will also humbly mourn over my sin and seek forgiveness so that I may be a witness to the saving work of his son Jesus. We should all seek to follow after his commandments and not live in our sin, but instead be broken to our sin.

  56. Michel Davis July 24, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    I hate to hear that so many-especially the government- have made an uproar over someone’s opinion. The last time I remember reading and teaching the Constitution we are able to have Freedom of Speech. Instead of the government worrying about those who are actually doing right, maybe they should look at themselves and realize they are the problem. I think that Chick fil A should open a business in Boston and if the mayor or governor tries to stop them, then Chick fil A should have a representative go crazy like Al Sharpton does when he thinks “his people” are being discriminated against. God knows that I need to learn and spend more time in HIS word, but I do know that if we continue to allow government and people who do not listen to God’s word rule this nation, we are going to continue to go on a downward spiral. We need to put Christ back into the center of all we do and then maybe our country will be great again! Thank you for writing this article and God bless!

  57. Lee Harrell July 24, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    Hmmm, A person’s beliefs are a person’s beliefs. They don’t refuse to serve you or throw you out if you are gay, white, black, hispanic, asian, pacific islander, or anyone other color, creed, national origin, religion etc. So, I will continue to enjoy the good food, clean restaurant, and excellent service at Chic-Fil-A and I will be happy to do so. If you are so hung up on every one being tolerant of your lifestyle, maybe you should be more tolerant of the opinions of others.

  58. Shelby Waln July 25, 2012 at 1:45 am #

    Who are we to tell Chick-Fil-A how to spend their hard earned money? If they are against gay marriage (as am I), then it only makes sense to support organizations who are also against gay marriage. I commend them for sticking to the Bible and taking a stand for Christ. That’s the great thing about America and the internet – everyone has the chance to voice their own opinions. Although supporting or boycotting a specific business should not be a mandated thing, rather, it should be an individual decision.

  59. Rohit Trivedi July 25, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    I think America is falling into line with the rest of the world’s view on Christianity. For so long, the historic christian faith, which has been afforded much freedom, respect and veneration for its moral views at least, is now being hated and intolerated by the majority (it’s very similar in the UK). This situation is present in Europe, where being a conservative christian is thought so ridiculous that it is not even worth engaging in debate, in the middle east, far east and south asia. Mind you that is what Jesus talked about in matthew 5:10-12, and john 15:18-19. Whilst we should be aiming to love others and speak with gentleness and respect on such issues even, I think that as a group of believers in Christ, we should expect much worse than verbal disagreements, boycotts of restaurants and a redefinition of tolerance in the years to come.

  60. Jason Owens July 25, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    One of the best break downs I’ve read about tolerance in a while.

    http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2012/07/tolerance-is-not-enough.html

  61. Dan Byrd July 25, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    My friend read Mayor Menino’s comments and asked: “I wonder how Menino feels about having the Catholic Church in Boston?”

    Great question don’t you think?

  62. Autumn Holiday July 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Its clear reading this for several hours that everyone is just battling the same things back & forth.

    I just want to point out first, that the Mayor of Boston isn’t just fighting against the Christians, he is fighting against discrimination. The exact same thing that the Christians are fighting against in this thread. You feel discriminated against, just as the homosexuals do. Regardless of which side you stand, everyone is being discrimnated against by oppostiion

    Furthermore, all the battling over right from wrong & reglion, the only thing that keeps coming to my mind is Westboro Baptist Church. While this thread may not be as radical as WBC, it is very similar in thought process.

    I would encourage you all to stop battling this never ending debate and work as one to come to some level ground and how to work forward.

  63. Robert Richardson July 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    You failed to mention how Chik-fil-a is donating moeny to Anti- gay groups. A person can believe what he wishes. A public organization is another matter. This is goign against basic human rights

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/chick-fil-a-donated-anti-gay-groups-2009_n_1069429.html

  64. Erin Steed July 26, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    Frankly, I don’t think Chick-Fil-A has to worry about what any city governments say about the company. First, the company is a Christian company built on Christian values and serving God in so many ways that God will never let this company fail. Second, in communities all over America, including one of the biggest metro regions in the area, Dallas-Fort Worth, Chick-Fil-A puts its money where it’s mouth is and gives back to thousands of needy families through its partnership with KLTY’s Christmas Wish program. And finally, I’m old enough to remember Sunday blue laws and I have to say, Praise God for a company with the character of Chick-Fil-A to honor God’s word and let Sunday be a day of rest. I haven’t visited every Chick-Fil-A in the country, or many of them, or most of them. In fact, I have a child with a deadly peanut allergy and we steer clear of anyplace that uses peanut oil. But, the few times we’ve been customers, the quality of the employees and the pride of the company is so evident. That is a top-down kind of standard that speaks volumes for every person who works for Chick-Fil-A, at every level. I have attended Christian leadership conferences and had the privilege of hearing Dan Cathy speak. I think anyone blessed enough to be motivated by his leadership style is in for a dynamic and life-changing lesson and gift!

  65. Rick Castle July 26, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    The Jim Henson Company (the toy company that provides the toys for Chick-fil-A) should be boycotted right through Christmas for boycotting Chick-fil-A’s stand on family values. I’ll make sure that any toy that I may want to purchase with the name Jim Henson on it remains on the store shelf. Christians and non-Christians who support family values, and…just flat out enjoy the food at Chick-fil-A…should support all Chick-fil-A businesses everywhere around the country. We should send a message with our dollars, in favor of Chick-fil-A! I must say, if The Jim Henson Company was really fair in it’s practices, then they would boycott Muslim companies, because that religion does not support gay marriages either.

  66. tameris rought July 26, 2012 at 3:56 am #

    I have read both sides of this story and in my opinion this shouldn’t be an issue we do live in America where we have the right to our own beliefs so if gays want to marry let them we have no right to judge them if the person on charge of chick fil a. Doesn’t. Think gays should marry he has the freedom to believe what ever he wants from my Christian stand point I don’t have to like what you do but only God has the right to judge you and your action. People seem to forget freedom of speach if you don’t like the opinion of a establishment don’t go it is that simple

  67. Gena Shiver July 26, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Everyone has a right to live their life the way they wish to. Everyone also has a right to believe the way they wish. If an individual or a business chooses to not believe in gay marriage that is their right. More Christians need to stand up on what they believe and not back down. I respect Dan Cathy and support what he believes and I will encourage all Christians to back him and continue to support his business – their are very few people, especially ones that own their business who will take a stand.

  68. Michael Thompson July 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    The real intolerance is allowing fundamentalist Muslims practice their religion without question and deriding fundamentalist Christians for practising their beliefs, when they both oppose homosexuality on a religious foundation.

  69. Kit Blake July 27, 2012 at 5:42 am #

    Persecution of God’s children… This is nothing new. I pray Don Cathy continues to be led by God, the lover of our souls. Don Cathy clearly loves all people (just like God)! God will see him through this! Be strong in the Lord. No weapon formed against you will prosper. Continue to let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Many see your good works and many are glorifying God. Now, Christians, we need to show our support by patronizing Chic-Fila. Actions speak louder than words. :-)

  70. Bill Griffin July 27, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    This probably sounds a bit nastier than I mean it but I wonder how the 10’s of millions of men who’ve had half of everything taken from them in divorce settlements would give a big welcome to the party guys in light of gays being able to have the rights afforded to them as everyone else.

    Not that it will taken seriously, except by divorce attorneys of course, but I wonder if gay marriage is granted legal status that some won’t make the age old statement – Be careful what you wish for, sometimes you may just get it.

  71. Mike Edwards July 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Actually what Kathy said according to the original quote above is that he supports the Biblical definition of family and the family unit. He didn’t say it, but II suppose that does translate to marriage being defined as between a man and a woman.

    In our country, civil marriage was always understood (defined, if you will) as being between a man and a woman–and our various laws and tax statuses have followed that definition. Common-Law marriages followed the same definitions. There were other assumptions within that definition–that the purpose of marriage was to procreate as well as to express conjugal love and to enable a viable family unit in which to nurture children and provide a safe and supportive family unit. Over time legal privileges and tax priviletes for married couples evolved based on these definitions.

    Within the last several years, as gay couples came out of the closet, they sought the same legal privileges as their married counterparts. Rather than seek legislation to justify gay unions as equally meriting these privileges, many attempted to just declare that they were entitled based on their personal belief that marriage should be redefined to include their situation–that is any mutually committed couple.

    This is where the gay activist went astray. Rather than seek to justify the legal privileges that should come of their unions, they just tried to piggy back on existing laws recognizing marriage by claiming a new definition of marriage which included them. But think about it: such a definition would allow marriages between siblings and between parents and children, A person could even declare a committed relationship with his or her dog and qualify for tax exemptions under this redefinition. Rather than foster acceptance, this tactic just created resistance.

    As their attempt to commandeer the definition of marriage met opposition; the activists reacted by calling those who disagreed with them names; ‘Homophobe, Racist, Anti-Gay, Intolerant, Hate Mongers.” They declared that they were being discriminated against and their rights were being violated. But where’s the logic and rational discourse? All of this name calling does nothing to justify their positioin; and I still haven’t found such a “right” listed in the Constitution. (Although I expect my opinion here will be likewise responded to with unreasoned name-calling.)

    Bottom line is that the attempt to intimidate Kathy and his family from their First Amendment right to freely state their opinions is just plain wrong. It does not further acceptance of the gay community. Rather, I suspect, it will increase their customer base as those who admire the Kathy family’s commitment to their values, their integrity, their honesty will eat at their restaurants.

    • Tanner Walters July 27, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

      Why would tat definition mean a person could marry their dog? That argument is incredibly offensive because it compares a consenting adult with an animal. It is an illogical point-gay marriage activists are not asking to marry their pets, they are asking for the right to marry a consenting, of-age adult.

      • John Duffy July 27, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

        First off, consider the context. You have to think before you speak. Mike Edwards put forth a very well-thought out comment, with facts and evidence. And you couldn’t put in so much time to think about a proper response. In a way, Mr. Edwards predicted your response. The gay activists don’t put thought into why they should get the same benefits, they just want to piggyback on the benefits of a heterosexual marriage. Anyone who says differently is labeled an offensive hate monger. What you don’t realize is that there are already organizations that seek to legalize human-animal marriages. Just like there are organizations that seek to legalize other forms of pseudo-marriage, like the North American Man/Boy Love Association that seeks to ban the age of consent laws we have in this country to protect minors. What I believe Mr. Edwards was trying to say is that if we set a precedent that gays can marry and have the same benefits of heterosexual marriages just because they want it, what’s to stop the NAMBLA or any other groups that seek to broaden the term marriage to fit what they want. If the gays want the same benefits that heterosexual marriages get, they have to provide justification as to why they should get it. And “because it’s not fair” is not an acceptable answer.

        • Tanner Walters July 30, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

          Justification to get married? What is a straight couple’s justification to get married, and how do you think it differs from a gay couple’s justification?
          A man loves a woman, and wants his love to be recognized by the law to allow for legal, practical benefits. This is NO different than a man who loves another man in the same position, or a woman who loves a woman. THAT’s the justification.
          In my mind, the definition of marriage is not being significant broadened simply because it casts aside gender. That is the ONLY issue being addressed by gays who want to get married. They are not fighting to allow unions that are not between two consenting adults, and bringing up groups like NAMBLA and these organizations you claim support human-animal marriages (which I have never heard of) is irrelevant to the argument.

  72. Chris Stockwell July 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    I’m a Bible-believing Christian. I do not believe that a gay relationship, solemnized by a ceremony is the same thing in God’s eyes as a marriage between a man and a woman. HOWEVER- I believe in freedom. Let men (and women) do what they will as long as they don’t impede the rights of others and let God judge them.

    Why shouldn’t anyone be able to create a contract with others regarding the sharing of their possessions? It shouldn’t matter if I want to create a contract with my brothers sharing our income and assets as common property. If it belongs to me, I should have the ability to share it as I see fit. Of course, there would need to be revision in tax laws if we start allowing civil unions between more than 2 people, but I’m fine with that.

    I think a lot of Christians don’t want to legalize gay marriage because they would see that as the government endorsing and creating provisions to support immorality. It’s one thing to allow people to live immoral lifestyles, it’s another to officially condone it and change the law in order to accommodate it. As some have already posted, the Bible speaks about nations that honor God with their laws and nations that dishonor God. Many Christians simply do not want the government to accommodate immorality. They fear the judgement of God on the nation as a whole.

    Do some “Christians” hate gay people? Unfortunately- yes. But most Christians who oppose legalizing gay marriage have no ill-will toward gay people. They simply do not want their elected officials to dishonor God and invite judgment on the Nation. Asking them to feel otherwise is the same as asking them to disbelieve their sacred scriptures.

    So, my solution is for the government to stop legitimizing marriage at all. Let people create contracts with anyone of their choice. It’s their property do with as they wish. If they want a civil union contract with a family member, or a friend, or someone with whom they have a romantic relationship- let everyone have the freedom to that. Then, leave it up to the various religious institutions to determine who they will and will not accept for the ceremony of marriage.

    I personally did not consider myself married when the marriage certificate was signed- I was married when my wife and I concluded our vows before God and other witnesses. Marriage is an institution created by God. And God joins a married couple- not the State. So if the State is inclined to accommodate and support immorality as the Bible defines it, I would prefer that they step out of the marriage conversation altogether. Let people create contracts whether they are in a sexual relationship or not. Let each person decide what they believe is a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God.

  73. Bob Hensley July 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Chic-Fil-A, Chic-Fil-A, Chic-Fil-A,…Yey, I own a Chic, Fil-A, Thank you all so much for sending us even more business than we can handle. Business is up 30% more… Thank you all so much!! Keep it up we are loving it!!

    Houston Texas!!

  74. Marc Bridges July 30, 2012 at 12:31 am #

    Would someone please list off all of the rights that gay people have been denied? What rights, exactly, do they not have that the rest of us do?

    Marriage? They have the right to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman. They have that right. What right have they been denied?

    To say it’s because they can’t marry another man or another woman is not a denial of rights. NO ONE has had that right all this time.

    Just because you can’t do something that you want to do does not mean your rights are being violated. There’s things I would like to do but just because I can’t doesn’t mean I should go out trumpeting about my rights being denied.

    What other rights have gays been denied? All I hear about is “gay rights”. What rights do they not currently have?

    • Audrey Holden July 30, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

      Sure Marc,

      You and I (OK I’m assuming you’re heterosexual) have the right to marry whomever we choose, as long as it’s a member of the opposite sex.

      You and I have the right to be with our spouse at their time of death, and hold their hand as they cross the veil from this world into the Heavenly.

      You and I have the right to make medical decisions for our spouse at a time of need. Gay partners? Not so much. Even will a living will.

      Need I go on?

    • Barry Noack July 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

      EXACTLY!!!!!!! Thank you Marc! But of course they won’t see this logic at all. How about we start trumpeting about our rights being denied? Because we obviously we don’t have the right to speak our mind and hold to our beliefs. That is what is really at stake here. It is an undeniable truth that God declared homosexuality a sin and hence it is something that Christians should believe by the mere merit of the book we claim to obey. So they (liberals and LGBT) are actually attempting to deny us our right to believe what our God has revealed to us. What’s next? Will we be persecuted for saying that abortion is a sin? Rape? Murder? Theft?
      I will not be shut up by a bunch of people whining and screaming intolerance in my direction while they themselves seem to be totally unaware of their own intolerance towards anyone that refuses to agree with them and validate their choice of lifestyle!
      I obey God…not men, women or whatever they want to be!

      • Chris Stockwell July 30, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

        “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” -1 Cor. 13:2

        Please reflect on your attitude, Barry. Your aggression is very apparent in your writing. The only people Jesus ever spoke to with aggression were self-righteous, hypocritical religious leaders.

        The gay community has been persecuted for hundreds of years by “Christians” who thought that the sin of homosexuality justified hatred. I’m not saying that Christians need to agree with homosexuality. But Christians should show love to all people while firmly, but gently affirming the Word of God. If the gay community lashes out because someone says they are sinning, We should turn the other cheek.

        I wonder if you’ve spent as much time praying for the gay community as you have writing these posts of yours.

        • Barry Noack July 30, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

          Don’t presume to know me or my attitude base on a written comment on a forum! You have no idea what I do or how I think.
          And the problem since you apparently don’t see it is the fact that we are NOT allowed to believe how we should anymore. WE (christians) are the ones being persecuted for our adherence to the word of God and here come people like yourself claiming that “homosexuals have been persecuted for hundreds of years by christians…”. What??? Please show the evidence to support that asinine statement. It isn’t “persecution” to disagree with something and to not support the normalization of it. By your “logic” then Christians must be persecuting murderers and rapists, thieves and liars and any other sin under the sun. Please, try actually thinking through this for yourself rather than siding with those that would see this sin normalized. There is no denial of ANY rights to gays and there is no persecution. Again the idiotic behavior that a few may exhibit towards a community or people does not justify your statement that “Christians” have persecuted them! That’s not only dishonest but weak in terms of an argument. And please at least try interpreting the word better next time, because our turning the other cheek wouldn’t even apply in the example you gave, because to do so would be to just sit by and do nothing. And not that you are anyone that I feel I have to respond to, but I pray for all sinners and all sins (including my own), but that doesn’t mean that I have to just stand by and let the world have it’s way!

          • Chris Stockwell July 30, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

            Barry- If your attitude is not one of aggression, then I apologize for my erroneous assessment. I’m also not advocating the normalization of sin. If you read my previous posts, I continually affirmed the Word of God in regards to its stance against homosexuality. I am not saying that all Christians have persecuted gay people, but that many have who called themselves Christians. I apologize for not providing footnotes to document the persecution of gays, but I would hope that you would research it for yourself before calling it an “asinine” argument. I personally know “Christians” who have threatened and verbally assaulted gay people. As for the historical aspect, please read this article, particularly the part about the Christian Emperor’s punishment for homosexuals: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/Homosexuality_in_the_Middle_Ages.htm

            As for turning the other cheek, it clearly applies here. The gay community lashed out against Cathy and other Christians who have stated their opposition to gay marriage. When they lash out at us, we should respond with kindness and humility while remaining firm in our stance against immorality.

            I served as a missionary in the former Soviet Union for several years. I knew men who were denied education and professional opportunities because of their faith. They showed me where they used to hide in fields from the KGB. Yet they managed to continue loving those who persecuted them.

            I’m not saying that the gay community is not persecuting Christians. I think they are to some extent. But I am saying that the proper response to that persecution is love.

            I don’t know what part of my earlier comment made you think that I’m advocating normalizing sin or accepting it. And I don’t think we are persecuting gay people when we call homosexuality sin. But I do think that your biting words are not Christ-like. I’m sorry to have to say something so harsh. But I assure you, it’s not because I’m trying pay you back for your discourteous response. It’s because I feel like you are standing up for the Word of God in a way that does not honor Him.

            • Barry Noack July 30, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

              I do apologize for my response, but I do not like someone making a broad assumption about my attitude or what I may or may not do. I can’t apologize for being so dogmatic about the word as that is actually part of my testimony. I am one of those that questioned and attacked everything that was Christian in nature or appearance before God saw fit to save me and am very familiar with the excuses and responses that the world has to the true gospel.
              But in response to your comments, would you not deem it more wise to say that homosexuals were perhaps persecuted by those that falsely called themselves Christian, rather than to say that true believers were doing these things? Because I think it is pretty clear that a child of God would not condone nor carry out such heinous acts as the ones you are referencing.
              But also keep in mind that the Christian’s response to the attacks was initially “loving”. I mean heck, Cathy even came out and clarified exactly what he meant. But what was the response? More hatred and false accusations. Nowhere can anyone, including the so called Mayor of Boston show where anyone was discriminated against by Chic-fil-A in any way whatsoever. And I still stand by my beliefs that they can live however they choose to, but when they attempt to force me or others to accept their lifestyle, that’s when I draw the line. And the audacity to compare this issue to the civil rights movement or to claim that they are suffering the same persecutions as my ancestors did for being black, is another insult all together! Last I checked, homosexuals weren’t deemed to be 1/5 of a human being, they weren’t denied the right to vote, to drink at any water fountain they choose, to be served in a restaurant, to have jobs, ride at the front of the bus, etc.! They haven’t been lynched for being gay, their homes haven’t been burned down because of it or anything else that happened to black people simply for being of dark complexion! Now, do I believe this sin to be any worse than any other? No, of course not. But it is without a doubt the one in the forefront of the worlds disobedience to God. If we just sit back and allow it to be normalized by using the cliche’ of “live and let live”, then we are just as guilty as they are, because by our silence we lend approval to their sins!

  75. Audrey Holden July 30, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Denny,

    I’ve been reading you for a while now but this is the first time I’ve come away with a genuine sense of disappointment over how you’ve wordsmithed this issue to make it appear as if the Cathy family isn’t opposed to gay marriage! Do you not have a real grasp of the crux of why the left is choosing to exercise their own freedom of speech and boycott Chick-Fil-A? Oh come on, you’re smarter than that!

    You know as well as I do that the Biblical definition of a traditional family is one man and one woman. Period.

    However, you know that the heart and sole of this issue lies with the fact that CFA/the Cathy family donates a great deal of their profits from CFA to organizations that fight against the same rights that we as heterosexuals have, being granted to homosexuals, especially as it pertains to gay marriage.

    Cathy didn’t HAVE to come out and use the words “gay”, “homosexual”, or anything like that. Everyone knows exactly what was implied by the term, “…Biblical definition of marriage.”

    The Cathy’s being pro-family has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. It’s what’s at the core of their definition of pro-family and the lengths they go to in order to protect that definition.

    You did not only yourself, but the Cathy family a huge disservice by playing with the words that were spoken, with this one, especially when all you have to do is read other quotes by Dan Cathy to know exactly what he meant by “biblical definition of marriage.”

    • Denny Burk July 30, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

      Audrey, I’ve never said or meant to imply that. Of course the Cathy’s support traditional marriage. I’ve said that over and over in this series of posts and in the comments. My point is that his remarks were understated and positive, not angry and negative. In other words, these weren’t pugnacious words, just a simple declaration of what he believes.

      I’m not playing with words here.

      • Andrew Jespersen July 31, 2012 at 1:52 am #

        If you had grown up hearing that you were a pervert, that you were responsible for the destruction of the family, that you were going to Hell, that you were LESS THAN…if you had grown up hearing all of these things, and reasoning, at the age of 8, that the only reasonable excuse for being this way is that you must be demon possessed or something….maybe you would find these sorts comments day after day after day after day a little more pugnacious than you seem to.

        All of the above? In church. And Christians wonder why the gay community reacts the way they do. And then I read the comments on your blog here. You seem to be a very nice man, with a good heart. But man – these comments. A lot of them only serve to affirm that I want nothing to do with the church. And can you blame me?

        Go eat Chick-Fil-A if you want. Awesome. But don’t expect to tell someone like me that we’ve “chosen” a “lifestyle” that you “don’t agree with” (as if it’s something you have to agree with), and expect us to accept it, with all the decades of humiliation and shame bestowed upon us, with grace and tolerance.

      • Andrew Jespersen July 31, 2012 at 1:52 am #

        If you had grown up hearing that you were a pervert, that you were responsible for the destruction of the family, that you were going to Hell, that you were LESS THAN…if you had grown up hearing all of these things, and reasoning, at the age of 8, that the only reasonable excuse for being this way is that you must be demon possessed or something….maybe you would find these sorts of comments day after day after day after day a little more pugnacious than you seem to.

        All of the above? In church. And Christians wonder why the gay community reacts the way they do. And then I read the comments on your blog here. You seem to be a very nice man, with a good heart. But man – these comments. A lot of them only serve to affirm that I want nothing to do with the church. And can you blame me?

        Go eat Chick-Fil-A if you want. Awesome. But don’t expect to tell someone like me that we’ve “chosen” a “lifestyle” that you “don’t agree with” (as if it’s something you have to agree with), and expect us to accept it, with all the decades of humiliation and shame bestowed upon us, with grace and tolerance.

  76. Dan Duffy July 31, 2012 at 8:48 am #

    What’s the beef with gay marriage? Shouldn’t every marriage be happy.? Why would anyone want dull, disconsolate relationships? I admit that sometimes I am not very gay. I can be sullen, withdrawn and sometimes just plain miserable and that has a deleterious effect not only on my wife, but also on my children. I think we all need to strive for more cheery, joyous connections with our families as well as the world at large. But all too often, we chicken out. (And this issue is not just controversial in the U.S. I suspect when it comes right down to it, even the Canadians have had their fill, eh?)

    But then I’m really old fashioned…just like the Flintstones.

  77. Kevin Olomon (aka "chubbyalaskagriz" @ EPI forums) August 8, 2012 at 6:29 am #

    I’m a gay Christian. Interestingly, as w/ most stereotypes- there often tends to be a reason they exist. Both gays and Christians have worked hard over the years to earn the negative portions of the reputations they have. I challenge gays AND Christians to work a wee bit harder at being the decent side of who it is they assert they are and leave some of the whacko ridiculousness that they BOTH are often guilty of, by the wayside.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Denny Burk: Chick-fil-a and the Irony of the Tolerance Police | A Brick in the Valley - July 21, 2012

    […] the rest here. Be Sociable, Share! […]

  2. As For Me and My House, We Will Eat at Chik-fil-A. « The Master's Table - July 22, 2012

    […] read this article, published by Denny Burk, titled Chik-fil-A and the Irony of the Tolerance Policy.  I will offer a […]

  3. Worth a Look 7.23.12 – Trevin Wax - July 23, 2012

    […] Chick-fil-a and the Irony of the Tolerance Police: Do you see how this is going? You don’t even have to mention homosexuality or gay marriage. All you have to say is that you are pro-family, and certain municipalities will exile your business. Welcome to the brave new world of tolerance. […]

  4. Combing the Net – 7/23/2012 « Honey and Locusts - July 23, 2012

    […] Chick-Fil-A and the Irony of the Tolerance Police — The mayor of Boston has threatened a ban on Chick-Fil-A restaurants as part of the dust-up over CEO Dan Cathy’s recent personal remarks about traditional marriage. Apparently, Christian business owners are no longer allowed to express religious opinions in Boston if they run crosswise with the Mayor’s views on marriage. If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, I don’t know what will. Again, the irony appears to be lost on the good mayor, who also fails to recognize that nothing Dan Cathy says indicates that homosexual persons will in any way be discriminated against at Chick-fil-a. […]

  5. A new friend with thoughtful questions | kainos - July 23, 2012

    […] Dan Cathy affirming traditional marriage (which activists immediately perverted into ludicrous charges of anti-gay discrimination), my new friend was asking where, among Christian ministries like […]

  6. Monday Links and Bullets 7.23.12 « pastorkevinb - July 23, 2012

    […] Is anyone with a traditional view of family allowed to do anything? This should send chills down your spine. Also, here is an article which clearly explains things from a Biblical […]

  7. The Intolerance of Tolerance « Anchored by the Word - July 23, 2012

    […] a different opinion than Mayor Menino on the gay marriage debate.  You can read the whole story here.  What is surprising is that Chick-fil-a isn’t even condemning gay marriage, they are merely […]

  8. A Morning Peacock of Links (7/23) | hobojarpen - July 23, 2012

    […] Chick-fil-a and the Irony of the Tolerance Police […]

  9. Hating On Chick-Fil-A? | David Crabb - July 24, 2012

    […] HT: Denny Burk  […]

  10. The Chick fil a Same-Sex Marriage Controversy (Timeline) « Kingdom First - July 24, 2012

    […] check out Denny Burke’s article at his website.  He gives a great perspective on this entire ordeal. Spread the […]

  11. “Anti-Gay” Chick-Fil-A: Everything You’ve Heard is a Lie | Creative Influence - July 25, 2012

    […] a great article with more information. Read it. You need to be […]

  12. Chicago Mayor Supports Effort To Keep Chick-fil-a Out | Denny Burk - July 25, 2012

    […] tolerance police strike again. Share […]

  13. This is America, Right? | slowingtheracingmind - July 26, 2012

    […] is a doozy.  The Chick-fil-a CEO has chosen to voice his opinion about the issue of gay marriage (correction: his words have been distorted – all he said was that his company was pro-family), and that […]

  14. This is America, Right? | slowingtheracingmind - July 26, 2012

    […] is a doozy.  The Chick-fil-a CEO has chosen to voice his opinion about the issue of gay marriage (correction: his words have been distorted – all he said was that his company was pro-family), and that […]

  15. Chick-fil-A Day « Dale Tedder's Journal - July 26, 2012

    […] Chick-fil-A and the Irony of the Tolerance Police by Denny Burk […]

  16. The New Puritanism: Chick-fil-A and Boycotts - Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture - July 26, 2012

    […] of all this, I think, is a new form of Puritanism that is slowly throttling our society.  The irony of the intolerant tolerant has often been noted.  But the problem goes far deeper than that:  it’s that as the […]

  17. The Chick-fi-Asco: Why Boycotts are Awful | Christ and Pop Culture - July 27, 2012

    […] You’ve probably seen the name “Chick-fil-A” mentioned more times in the last week than in all of the other weeks of your existence combined. Therefore, I’m going to assume that you’re familiar with the story of Dan Cathy’s “guilty as charged” comment regarding anti-gay marriage opinions, and the subsequent social and mainstream media backlash and back-backlash that ensued. (If you’re not, read this GetReligion piece or this post from Denny Burke.) […]

  18. Friday Link Highlight 7.27.12 – Chick-Fil-A and the Irony of the Tolerance Police « pastorkevinb - July 27, 2012

    […] http://www.dennyburk.com/chick-fil-a-and-the-irony-of-the-tolerance-police/ […]

  19. Even more appalling than racism | kainos - July 29, 2012

    […] at how the mainstream media perverted Dan Cathy’s support of pro-family causes into ludicrous charges of anti-gay discrimination. But I was deeply saddened when some of the outpouring about the racist […]

  20. “The New Puritanism” « Notes from a Small Place - July 31, 2012

    […] of all this, I think, is a new form of Puritanism that is slowly throttling our society.  The irony of the intolerant tolerant has often been noted.  But the problem goes far deeper than that:  it’s that as the […]

  21. Want more social engagement?… « taylorpowell - July 31, 2012

    […] out this fantastic article a friend shared about social tolerance…oh the liberal hypocrites out there. […]

  22. Chick-Fil-A Day - Right Impulse - August 10, 2012

    […] However, there is no evidence of this. Chick-Fil-A has not turned away anyone based on their “sexual orientation”. They continue to serve gay customers with the same pleasure they serve straight customers and they continue to provide jobs to members of the gay community. They have made an official statement saying, “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor…” […]

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes