Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

Since we're digging up links, here is Dan Cathy's official response to the allegations:

In recent weeks, we have been accused of being anti-gay. We have no agenda against anyone. At the heart and soul of our company, we are a family business that serves and values all people regardless of their beliefs or opinions. We seek to treat everyone with honor, dignity and respect, and believe in the importance of loving your neighbor as yourself.

We also believe in the need for civility in dialogue with others who may have different beliefs. While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.

Chick-fil-A's Corporate Purpose is "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us, and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." As a result, we will not champion any political agendas on marriage and family. This decision has been made, and we understand the importance of it. At the same time, we will continue to offer resources to strengthen marriages and families. To do anything different would be inconsistent with our purpose and belief in Biblical principles.

The evil fiend! How dare he not be politically involved when we want to demonize him!

My apologies for posting the other side of the story.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Byteman


Ooooh boy, I could go on with this response, but I'll just tag a few mistakes. the passage states "THE LOVE OF money is the root of all evil." Not money. Also note...wrote by Timothy? The books names "Timothy" are actually letters written by Paul the Apostle to the afformentioned missionary. Close though.

You mention "English speaking Christians"...wow. And you worry about my generalizations? God has many names, there are many many names used in the Bible. So me using the term Yaweh...Which is Hebrew, (And I'm sure you never use any foriegn terms in your daily ramblings) Is a bad thing? That noted, how do you know that English is my first language? Could it be Cree from my heratige? French? Irish Gaelic? Big stretch on the last one, but seriously. Come on now.

Redneck pretty much summed up the rest of the things you needed to hear. And in a balanced, "non-biogoted" way at that.

I have read the official statement. It doesn't matter.

Marriage equality is a political discrimination issue. In this modern time there is no logical reason to deny them marriage - - no matter how much it creeps you out.

Gays are not the ones causing the problem. They are the ones that are being hated and discriminated against.

Say it with me: "Yes - you have the same rights as everyone else". Now wasn't that easy? No hate. No discrimination. No boycotts. No millions of dollars.

A couple obscure references from an ancient text - - - is not a justifiable reason to hate - and spend millions of dollars to discriminate and prevent two adults from a right everyone else has.

A corporation is responsible for every thing associated with it. Saying "it was a franchise - it wasn't me" - - is not going to cut it.

Providing free food to a group known to politically and financially support denial of Marriage Equality - - - does make Chick A Fil - - - a target - - even if indirectly. You boycott the "power" - - the one who will be most affected.

Originally posted by Annee
I have read the official statement. It doesn't matter.

Marriage equality is a political discrimination issue. In this modern time there is no logical reason to deny them marriage - - no matter how much it creeps you out.

Gays are not the ones causing the problem. They are the ones that are being hated and discriminated against.

Say it with me: "Yes - you have the same rights as everyone else". Now wasn't that easy? No hate. No discrimination. No boycotts. No millions of dollars.

A couple obscure references from an ancient text - - - is not a justifiable reason to hate - and spend millions of dollars to discriminate and prevent two adults from a right everyone else has.

A corporation is responsible for every thing associated with it. Saying "it was a franchise - it wasn't me" - - is not going to cut it.

Providing free food to a group known to politically and financially support denial of Marriage Equality - - - does make Chick A Fil - - - a target - - even if indirectly. You boycott the "power" - - the one who will be most affected.

Is non- support equal to hate? Supporting traditional marrige is the same as hate towards homosexual union? It seems like a hefty idea. And as for the comment about the "obscure anceint text"....is that not discrimination towards us followers of said texts? Or hatred for what we stand for? It seems as though you are telling us its ok to hate WASPs, but we as that populace must take all discriminatory statements and sentiments towards us. I'm explaining how this is coming across.

Originally posted by IronArm

Is non-support equal to hate? Supporting traditional marrige is the same as hate towards homosexual union? It seems like a hefty idea. And as for the comment about the "obscure anceint text"....is that not discrimination towards us followers of said texts? Or hatred for what we stand for? It seems as though you are telling us its ok to hate WASPs, but we as that populace must take all discriminatory statements and sentiments towards us. I'm explaining how this is coming across.

You want to support traditional marriage - - - then do it within your own belief system.

I am not telling you anything about your belief - - that is your interpretation. I was raised Christian. I am fully aware of the belief - - and still consider the references to same sex - - obscure reference - - in an ancient text.

This is a political discrimination issue. Every citizen has the right to equality. It will happen. Gays will be given the right to marriage - in time.

Religion is a belief - - and shall not be forced on non-believers.

Originally posted by Annee
This is a political discrimination issue. Every citizen has the right to equality. It will happen. Gays will be given the right to marriage - in time.

Just wanted to post your own words to make sure you understand them.

This IS a political disrcimination issue...one group is upset that PRIVATE citizens that own a PRIVATE company donated to a group that is not parallel in IDEOLOGY to theirs.

The only people that are making this a RELIGIOUS issue are those that are against the donation.

Funny how the people always screaming loudest for equality never have a problem trampling other peoples rights.

My personal opinion on this...this is how we stop donations as a whole...where's the 'golf clap' emoticon?

Edit to add:

How many American's know that the vast majority of the major global corporations (privately owned) maintain their head offices in countries that do no follow (or even attempt to adhere to) equality?

Yet nobody says a word...this will be a blip on the radar...I predict zero loss of long term sales.


Forgot to qualify that global corporations as the privately owned global corporations...and there are lots of them.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Im glad to read that. Thanks for posting it.

I have no problem with that, and I support it. I am all for people who spread genuine Christian behavior, (Acting as Jesus would) because he asks us not to judge, to give and help, and love, and all sorts of good stuff. Im totally down with that. Its hard to find fault with the message of Jesus. (Not Paul, I have issues with him.)

As long as they are not trying to violate the separation of church and state, and/or imposing old Testament bigotry and hate, Im totally cool with them. If they want to support their idea of family, while not denying other people the right to pursue their own, how could I argue that is their right?

reply to post by peck420


Marriage is not a Right it is in fact a privilege if it was a Right then you wouldn't need the state to give you permission.

If gays want to allow the Government to enslave them then more power to them,but trampling someones rights(to do as they want with their own property/money) to gain a privilege is defeating the whole purpose.

Gays have every right to boycott whoever they want so they need to enact that right and just not eat at chik fil A. problem solved.

I for one think the Government should stop giving tax incentives to married couples and all of this would be a non issue because no one would have any incentive other than Love(isn't that what marriage is really about?) to get married in the first place.

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by peck420

 

Marriage is not a Right it is in fact a privilege if it was a Right then you wouldn't need the state to give you permission.

I must apologize, in Canada, my marriage is different from my Civil Marriage Statement.

I propose we simply go back in time.
George Washington got married with a small group of friends and family and sealed their covenant between man and wife and Yah by signining their names in their family Bible enacting the covenant they were making.
There was no covenant made between man and wife and state.
In a way annee is correct. We should end this covenant between man and wife and state and simply revert back to what it really is.
A covenant between Hayah Asher Hayah and the 2 parties.

In todays marriage contract it is a joining of 2 strawman fiction corporations and the corporate state.
It is optional to add Yah in this contract.
I have no problems at all what you do with this corporate agreement.
But call it something else just for language purposes.
Marriage is a covenant between 1 man, 1 woman and Yah as a religious and historical definition.
Instead of changing the definition to suit a hate filled bias against Yah, just give your new entity a name that defines it. I see no reason to assimilate into your presupposed witch hunt a redefinition of something you don't agree with and do not want.

I need to inform you as you continue to call attention to the topic of the thread.
The only 2 people that believe this is the topic is you and the op
The rest of us see this thread about secular hypocrisy and personal witch hunts and the use of sensationalist language and sources that skew the truth, not enhance it and our understanding.
No, what we get here instead is a headstrong attitude that seeks affirmation at any expense leaving truth as a casualty

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IronArm

Is non-support equal to hate? Supporting traditional marrige is the same as hate towards homosexual union? It seems like a hefty idea. And as for the comment about the "obscure anceint text"....is that not discrimination towards us followers of said texts? Or hatred for what we stand for? It seems as though you are telling us its ok to hate WASPs, but we as that populace must take all discriminatory statements and sentiments towards us. I'm explaining how this is coming across.

You want to support traditional marriage - - - then do it within your own belief system.

I am not telling you anything about your belief - - that is your interpretation. I was raised Christian. I am fully aware of the belief - - and still consider the references to same sex - - obscure reference - - in an ancient text.

This is a political discrimination issue. Every citizen has the right to equality. It will happen. Gays will be given the right to marriage - in time.

Religion is a belief - - and shall not be forced on non-believers.

And non-religion shouldn't be forced upon belivers now should it? I admire how hard you fight to maintain your ground, thats all well and good, but your "Back off my territory" is in fact starting to tread onto ours. You wish to support your ideal of marrige...well, I repeat your words back to you. Do it in your own belief system.

reply to post by peck420


And as a post script to this, In Canada, if a pastor refuses to marry homosexuals based on his belief structure, he is then liable to recieve federal punishment. How is that not infringement on Christian rights?

reply to post by peck420


You are correct you have a Right to live with whom ever you want for as long as you want(common law marriage) and yes the benefits are a privilege for being legally married in a way the state/government sanctions.

I for one have lived with a woman for long enough to be common law man and wife but refuse to get legally married for the simple fact that I don't need the Government to validate something I feel in my heart. I will not accept their handouts(Tax incentives) just so they can further legally enslave me more than they already have by contracting legal fictions to do as they dictate.

reply to post by IronArm


It's a little more complex than that, but it does boil down to the trampling of some persons rights for others.

The official law in Canada is that a pastor/preist that has the ability to perform a civic marriage (the official certified marriage as recognized by the gov) can not say no on the grounds of homosexuality. S/he is, however, allowed to not perform the religious marriage....which puts the preist/pastor in a pickle, as they are not allowed by the church to perform marriages without the religious component.

I am fully aware that some disregard the church ruling and that some disregard the federal ruling. But the written law is really the only baseline I can go by.

This is complete BS imho as it puts the preist/pastor in a no-win situation, if the are that against same-sex marriage. As they will loose, no matter which path they take.

All this said, the number of preists/pastors that will not marry same-sex couples (in my area at least) are a very tiny minority. I do not know if this is due to the law or to the lack of polarization on same-sex marriage in Canada? (In the grand scheme of politics, same-sex marriage was a foot note...don't know if that is how it was portrayed internationally.)

As a complete side question...why is homosexuality such a hot-button issue in the US? Or is it just played up by media?

reply to post by peck420


Out here in Alberta....Quite a big deal to marry a gay couple. Outside of Edmonton that is haha

Originally posted by peck420
The only people that are making this a RELIGIOUS issue are those that are against the donation.

NO

Originally posted by peck420
The official law in Canada is that a pastor/preist that has the ability to perform a civic marriage (the official certified marriage as recognized by the gov) can not say no on the grounds of homosexuality. S/he is, however, allowed to not perform the religious marriage....which puts the preist/pastor in a pickle, as they are not allowed by the church to perform marriages without the religious component.
as portrayed internationally.)

This I do not agree with. I mean the part about a clergy/pastor/priest being forced by government to perform gay marriage.

If is against their belief - - their belief should be honored. There are plenty who willingly will marry gay couples.

Religion is a personal choice. It is not about government equality or a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription on moral grounds.

Originally posted by IronArm
And non-religion shouldn't be forced upon belivers now should it? I admire how hard you fight to maintain your ground, thats all well and good, but your "Back off my territory" is in fact starting to tread onto ours. You wish to support your ideal of marrige...well, I repeat your words back to you. Do it in your own belief system.

When you come up with a logical reason gays should not have Government Marriage Equality - - let me know.

Religious belief is not a legitimate or logical reason.

reply to post by Annee



Its not a matter of gay rights...they can do whatever they please. Its no bother to me. What grinds my gears is when they expect the rest of society to not only support them, but encourage them and fund them. The whole premise of this discussion is about a company supporting a STRAIGHT focused group. They aren't holding protests outside of gay bars with chicken in their fists screaming "Homosexuals should be beaten!". I mean...if you don't support the Chevrolet and instead you prefer Ford, you support Ford, not try and start a war with Chev. Does that make any sense? They support what they believe in, not fighting against what they don't. Thats pefectly reasonable no? My analogy is poor, I won't argue that. Go ahead and mock it, but I'm making an effort to get my point across in a non-violent manner.

reply to post by Annee


Dear Annee,

I'm just a little disappointed that you didn't respond to my last post. Oh well, can't have all the cake.

I'm also sorry to see that you have left the world of practical politics, and indeed humanity, behind.

You know that movements, laws, policies, etc. come from people. You should also know that religious beliefs are a powerful motivator to many. You might claim religious reasons are illogical or illegitimate, but those many people would not agree. Religious reasons have been terribly important to behavior for a long time. If I understand correctly, no vote conducted among the citizens of a state has resulted in approval of a "gay marriage" (It's shorthand) provision. I would wager that religious beliefs were a significant factor in those votes. Courts and legislatures have approved it, yes, but not the citizens.

It makes you sound unpleasantly authoritarian to say "I will decide what types of reasons are acceptable in this discussion." Doesn't strengthen your case.