- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Chick-fil-A and the Culture War

Two weeks ago, Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-fil-A, an Atlanta company famous for its juicy chicken sandwiches, appeared on “The Ken Coleman Show” to air his biblical belief that those who champion same-sex marriage are risking divine retribution upon us all.

“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,'” said Cathy. “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.”

Speaking of the company his father started after World War II, Cathy went on, “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.”

With 1,600 restaurants and 50,000 employees in 40 states, Chick-fil-A is among our fastest-growing food chains. Obedient to the commandment, “Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day,” Cathy closes his outlets on Sundays.

Advertisement

Reaction to his remarks has been little short of hysterical.

Mayors Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, Thomas Menino of Boston and Edwin Lee of San Francisco said they no longer want Chick-fil-A in their cities. “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” says Rahm.

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray says there’s no place for “hate chicken” in the nation’s capital. Boycotts of Chick-fil-A, its expulsion from campuses and “Same-Sex Kiss Day” at local outlets are planned.

Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin have come to the defense of Cathy and Chick-fil-A, and on Wednesday scores of thousands of loyal patrons dined at outlets in solidarity.

What does this battle tell us about which way the tide is running in the culture war?

If intolerance is a mark of rising faiths and movements, the news is not good.
For consider. Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against any patron, and after Cathy’s remarks, the company issued a statement that, as Paul Gottfried writes, reads like something out of the Department of Education.

Said Chick-fil-A’s PR office, we “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.” Nor have charges of systematic civil rights violations in hiring or promotion been leveled against the chain.
What, then, brought down the firestorm of abuse on the company and its president as homophobic, intolerant and bigoted?

Answer: It is simply what Cathy said and what Cathy believes.

The homosexual rights revolutionaries can no longer tolerate the public expression of beliefs, held since the time of Christ, about the immorality of homosexuality–beliefs still taught in Christian schools and preached in Christian churches. Those who profess or promulgate such beliefs are to be shunned and subjected to social and economic sanctions.

What is astonishing is that we are not talking here about the expression of Nazi ideas, but of teachings about the spiritual and social consequences of homosexuality embedded in our country’s own Old-time Religion. In the more progressive precincts of America, the retelling of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the lessons therein, is apparently now a hate crime.

Remarkable is the change in society we have witnessed. It was not 10 years ago that the Supreme Court declared that states could no longer outlaw private sexual behavior between consenting adults and tossed out the anti-sodomy laws of 17 states. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court had “taken sides in the culture war” and “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” This decision “effectively decrees the end of all moral legislation” and makes same-sex marriage a logical result, said the justice.

Scalia was right. Consider how far we have come since.

While homosexual marriage has been rejected by voters in all 31 states where it has been on a ballot, it is being imposed by state legislatures and judges. Now we have the spectacle of a public caning of a private citizen for expressing religious beliefs held by perhaps 100 million American adults.

What is behind the rage, other than a hatred of Cathy’s Christian beliefs and a determination to see them stamped out?

As the individuals attacking Cathy obviously reject his biblical beliefs and consider them absurd, what are they afraid of? Mr. Cathy is not some fascist about to seize power, but a socially conservative businessman.

Indeed, not until this year has a timid Democratic Party decided to endorse homosexual marriage in its platform. In 2008, Barack Obama was still for traditional marriage.
If the Republican Party has not gone wobbly in the culture war, it will take up the challenge of that Democratic platform and make homosexual marriage the social issue of the fall election.

The GOP might just drive a wedge through the Democratic coalition and send Obama down to defeat. But if the Tampa Republicans are unwilling to fight the culture war, culture warriors should look to themselves.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of TAC and the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? [1]” Copyright 2012 Creators.com [2]

36 Comments (Open | Close)

36 Comments To "Chick-fil-A and the Culture War"

#1 Comment By Dimitry Aleksandrovich On August 3, 2012 @ 1:44 am

The homosexual rights crowd needs to be very careful. They are a small minority and because they can’t procreate they will always be a small minority. If they push too hard they might find themselves hiding back in the closet like they do in Russia.

#2 Comment By Nick K. On August 3, 2012 @ 3:51 am

The homosexual rights advocates are responding with what can only be called- in the strict sense- a zealous rage. That is, they are responding as modern-day Inquisitors against a prominent example (Dan Cathy) of what they regard as deviation from a quasi-religious orthodoxy: political correctness. That’s where the rage and the frightening intolerance come from. That self-righteousness is further fueled by the government sanction that homosexuality has received from the courts in the past decade. How long before Old Testaments are regarded as “hate literature”? How long before traditional marriage is decried as a hate crime for being “exclusive”, or some such nonsense?

#3 Comment By Amos Newcombe On August 3, 2012 @ 7:14 am

“Answer: It is simply what Cathy said and what Cathy believes.”

False. It is what Cathy does: spend lots of money on anti-gay-marriage initiatives. I don’t want any of that money to come from me. Therefore I am voting with my wallet, as is my right.

#4 Comment By Art Deco On August 3, 2012 @ 9:01 am

The GOP might just drive a wedge through the Democratic coalition and send Obama down to defeat. But if the Tampa Republicans are unwilling to fight the culture war, culture warriors should look to themselves.

Among those ‘unwilling to fight the culture war’ are several employees of the publication you founded. That would be Rod Dreher, a man in an continuous state of emotional upset if not panic; and the too-cool-for-school Daniel McCarthy. Too whom should your readers look?

#5 Comment By Philo Vaihinger On August 3, 2012 @ 9:03 am

“To gay marriage activists, traditional beliefs are something to be punished.”

The attitude of homosexuals toward the traditional, core sexual morality of Christianity is much like that of Jews towards some 2,000 years of Christian Jew-hating.

It is easily understood and entirely justified.

All the same, the behavior of certain Democratic mayors in this matter has been absurd and deplorable.

One might well decline to buy a hamburger from a shop owner who gave a part of his profits to the American Nazi Party and one might even go so far as to try to organize a boycott, but no American government official has the least legitimate business seeking to shut down the shop on account of the owner’s deplorable attitude.

Still, Pat is quite right about who and what are the opposing forces in this fight.

On the one side of the culture war we have by far most of the American clergy aligned in support of Christian religious and moral views and on the other we have secularists, atheists, and religious renegades – people called “religious liberals” reject pretty much all of the content of actual religion – aligned in flat opposition to both those religious beliefs and those moral views.

In America, today, anti-Semitism is widely deplored, unavowable in public, and something for which many people enthusiastically demand societal, though not governmental, punishment.

So powerful is that outlook that dissent from America’s policy toward Israel and its enemies is falsely but effectively slandered as anti-Semitism.

Pat is perfectly right that the attitude of what he sometimes calls “the cultural left” toward the Christian outlook on homosexuality that they dub “homophobia” is just the same.

“Everything is what it is and not another thing.

“Why, then, should we wish to be deceived?”

#6 Comment By geronimo On August 3, 2012 @ 9:51 am

“How long before Old Testaments are regarded as ‘hate literature’?” there are merits in regarding the OT as hate speech.

And american christians should stop seeing persecution and opression in every corner, seeing every non-christian as a Nero. American christians know nothing about persecution.

#7 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On August 3, 2012 @ 11:20 am

I have posted this ad nauseum. this (same sex marriage) is a 14th Amendment issue. Cathay’s right to his “faith-based” views on homosexuality and marriage are not threatened by two homosexuals having their relationship endorsed by “the state”. the fact that Cathay believes Americans who support the 14th Amendment (“…equal protection of the laws…”) are shaking their fists at god, is again; his opinion (of both the Constitution AND the Bible). there is no “culture war”. were I Dan Cathay; I would continue to sell chicken sandwiches, support the organizations I support, and worry about MY personal relationship with god; as opposed to other peoples’ personal relationships with their partners and/or gods. the Constitution trumps the Bible outside of the (Biblical) Cathay family and Chik-fil-A Headquarters. the idea that the behaviors/actions of non-Christians impact or influence god’s “judgment” of Dan Cathay; or any America is foolish.

#8 Comment By icarusr On August 3, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

“If they push too hard they might find themselves hiding back in the closet like they do in Russia.”

Right. Those liberal bullies. Poow wittow persecuted Chwistians are just full of the milk of human kindness, nary a thought hatred or of violence … “like they do in Russia”.

When threatened with being pushed back into the closet “like they do in Russia”, I reserve the right to boycott, to belittle, to verbally attack and if necessary abuse, not only the person but the faith and belief structure that would give rise to this outright threat of violence. Want a “culture war” by threatening me with Russian cultural practices? Bring it on baby.

#9 Comment By John Gruskos On August 3, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

I learned two things this week: pickles taste good on a fried chicken sandwich, and Rahm’s values are not America’s values.

#10 Comment By A.C. On August 3, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

Sigh. Sure good to see that this revamped website has produced a better understanding of these issues and a more intelligent commentary. (Yes-decide for yourself whether the sarcasm detector light is blinking)

On a happier note, though, I’m thrilled (and rather shocked) to see Pat has been invited at least twice or thrice now, hopefully regularly in the future, to be a panelist on Bret Baier’s Special Report. It’d be nice to see a conservative on TV who understands what’s at stake in this particular issue actually getting a chance to express him/herself. Some of the other “cons” we see on TV express genuine surprise at this whole gay fast food chickengate sweeping the nation, and its implications for intolerance of religious liberty, but they shouldn’t be surprised. The implications SHOULD BE obvious. Obviously they weren’t (and aren’t) to some of Pat’s fellow “conservatives” on Fox News. Earth to conservatives: when you start caving on some of this-like repeal of D.A.D.T., etc, we’re gonna have a lot more stories like this silly one in the news.

So Pat shouldn’t blame it ALL on the poor old “cultural left”. All those Americans who waited for two hours for a breaded chicken sandwich on Wed. may not have put it into such words as these for the average, no doubt horrified, AP, Reuters, and network journo who awoke to cover this unsettling-to-them story, but I submit they understand all this a lot better than Washington “conservative” intellectuals who find this issue “icky” and are oblivious to the obvious impossibility of reconciling religious liberty with things like repealing DADT and the whole rest of the sexual liberationist agenda. How about speaking for them, Pat, on the next panel you’re on, those regular Americans, rather than placing your hopes in the GOP standing firm on the cultural war? (! Ha! Good luck w/that! Your original speech in Houston was TWENTY years ago! And they’re more, not less, spineless now!)

#11 Comment By icarusr On August 3, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

the obvious impossibility of reconciling religious liberty with things like repealing DADT and the whole rest of the sexual liberationist agenda.

If I understand it correctly, before DADT, there was no religious freedom in these Blessed United States. One piece of legislation, passed nary ten years ago, if repealed – so that we are where started before its passage – that one piece of legislation defines religious freedom. To the point that it would be obviously impossible to repeal DADT and have religious freedom. Obviously. IMpossible. Curious definition of religious freedom. Or of what “obvious” and “impossibility” mean.

And, of course, it is “obviously impossible” to reconcile religious freedom and the, er, um, “sexual liberationis agenda” – I know this for a fact, because I have actually lived in a country where that nefarious agenda was punished by death and public torture. Fornicator? Stone the hag. Adulterer? First flog and then stone. Contraception? Illegal, instrument of satan and sexual license. And I can tell you, nothing – nothing at all demonstrates the flourishing of religious freedom than seeing an 18 yo and a 20 yo, both boys, both yanked out of school for two years of imprisonment, 80 strikes of sanctified cable, before being publicly hanged from the neck, until dead twenty minutes later, from a crane. There went that sexual liberationist agenda, impossible to reconcile with freedom … with religious freedom.

#12 Comment By Krek On August 3, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

Funny how culture warriors like Pat cite stories from the so-called ‘Old Testament’ to support his position, but his own religion, namely Christianity was born out of rejection of the Old Testament. So homosexuality is bad because the Old Testament says so, but eating pork is okay? Btw, the Sabbath day of rest is on a Saturday, not on the Sunday.

#13 Comment By Art Deco On August 3, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

I submit they understand all this a lot better than Washington “conservative” intellectuals who find this issue “icky” and are oblivious to the obvious impossibility of reconciling religious liberty with things like repealing DADT and the whole rest of the sexual liberationist agenda.

At the risk of being accused of sectarianism, I will point out that the director of the National Organization for Marriage lives in Maryland and is a contributor to National Review, not to this publication. The Ethics and Public Policy Center is located in …. Washington.

One might also point out that when denizens of palaeoworld makes an attempt at policy or practical politics, the resultant is the promotion of things like “Austrian” economics.

#14 Comment By scott On August 3, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

I voted against the gay marriage act in CA. In 2004 (?). Then it was repealed by a homosexual judge! I’m against gay marriage not for religious reasons but because it is just plain bizarre!

#15 Comment By Joe On August 3, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

A man who was protesting on Wednesday was fired from his job for doing so and then received death threats.

Freedom of speech for who?

#16 Comment By Joe On August 3, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can’t do that. Why is gay marriage any different?” – Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.

#17 Comment By Joe On August 3, 2012 @ 7:16 pm

“The homosexual rights crowd needs to be very careful. They are a small minority and because they can’t procreate they will always be a small minority. If they push too hard they might find themselves hiding back in the closet like they do in Russia.”

Replace one word:

“The Jewish rights crowd needs to be very careful. They are a small minority and they will always be a small minority. If they push too hard they might find themselves hiding back in the closet like they do in Germany.”

And you wonder why you are synonymous with hate?

#18 Comment By Maria On August 3, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

The media blew up what Dan Cathy said. The homosexuals went into their usual hissy fit. The “Christians” – at the behest of a washed up Senator and failed Presidential candidate, and his sidekick of a bass-playing-big-spending former Governor and former warvangelical preacher with a TV show – hit back by having their day of support for CFA. Not to be outdone, the homosexuals are holding a “Kiss In” tonight.

So who wins in this? Jesus? Nah. Nobody pays attention to His words on how to treat your neighbor or the Bible’s admonition that a soft answer turns away wrath. Do Christians “win”? No. They cut their own noses off. Do homosexuals win? Nope. They still look like a bunch of people who are angry that people don’t celebrate homosexuality with them.

Who wins? The media. Because, after all, it’s tougher to report real news than to create some stupid controversey and lead the sheeple around by the nose. If they play their cards right, they can get a few more months out of this story before they have to tax their brains and figure out something else to be indignant over.

#19 Comment By Joe On August 3, 2012 @ 7:23 pm

“How long before Old Testaments are regarded as ‘hate literature’? How long before traditional marriage is decried as a hate crime for being ‘exclusive’, or some such nonsense?”

A case in Michigan was just dismissed on exactly this count. Three pastors went to court and begged to be arrested. The case was dismissed, with the judge asking, If the Hate Crimes Act prohibits only willfully causing bodily injury and Plaintiffs are not planning to willfully injure anybody, then what is their complaint?”

In a line that could be directed quite easily at you: “Plaintiffs answer that they fear wrongful prosecution and conviction under the Act. Not only is that fear misplaced, it’s inadequate to generate a case or controversy the federal courts can hear.”

It’s just always the boogieman around the corner for you, isn’t it? You know, we don’t live in the oceans anymore millions of years ago, constantly worried that another fish is going to eat us. But that fear is a powerful, if irrational, motivator. Use your brain, the higher level function. You know, the one that separates us from the animals. And you will find the truth.

#20 Comment By Joe On August 3, 2012 @ 7:28 pm

Well. Hasn’t this irony come full circle. Pat Buchanan, a politician who spent his life using the majority to take away the rights of gay people, is now worried that politicians are going to take away his rights. And Christians who have spent their lives taking rights away from others are now worried others are going to have their rights taken away from them.

I’m sure that irony is completely lost on him.

#21 Comment By AC On August 4, 2012 @ 2:46 am

My (i thought, obvious) point, Art Deco, was in comparing PJB’s position on this as a “public conservative” w/the unmentioned specifically but (again, i thought, obvious) other so-called conservatives on Baier’s Special report program among other FNews spots, who always seem surprised when the militant Left tries to militantly overreach. Krauthammer (who’s on that show every day and is routinely described as a “conservative” by NR and others) as well as Steve Hayes, a writer for the allegedly conservative Weekly Standard, were positively CHEERLEADING for DADT to be repealed last year. If that’s their position, then, fine, but don’t keep telling me how conservative they are, establishment Washington. (SAme goes for the terminally silly “spokesRepublican” Margaret Hoover on O’Reilly)

And they have no right to be surprised now, either, -THAT’S the point. Gays were already serving honorably in military before this repeal, just not as annoyingly as hand-picked, media-chosen “out and proud” tokens do now. Tokens of identity politics representatives for cultural marxists who couldn’t care less about patriotism and honor and duty performed by straight or gay vets. (Hell, they were even serving before Bubba and DADT and all of this nonsense started, that mandated we all have to celebrate the sexual revolution. They were simply denying they were gay, received a wink and a nod from some presumably perceptive recruiters who knew better, and then enlisted. Only when the sexual revolution Left insisted Bubba change the policy for them to serve AS gays, with all of that lefty identity politics nonsense, did this alleged “discrimination problem” arise in first place)

My problem is Krauthammer and Hayes and a lot of these “pseudos” buy into this manufactured sob story that they couldn’t serve honorably; it was a problem that had to be fixed, blah, blah, blah. No. It wasn’t a problem that needed to be fixed. It wasn’t even a problem. And having our intelligence insulted by presumed “conservatives” who assist the parasitical Left this way, and then are dopily surprised when we’re somehow stuck watching “news stories” about homosexual chicken sandwiches or whatever the hell their problem is with Cathy and his fine food chain is now really, REALLY annoying.

So, I’m glad PJB is now on FNews, as intermittently as it may be, to provide an actual, GENUINE conservative perspective on this. That perspective should be obvious: Sex is for married husbands and wives, especially in an institution in our society that is as inherently traditionalist and emblematic of “a Standard” as the armed forces are. And, yes, that standard comes from western religion, -Christianity, or Judeo-Christianity. If that’s somehow seen as “discrimination”, tough. I sure don’t care. EVERYBODY discriminates, in this case one in favor of sexual relativism, the other like me (and PJB) in favor of a Judeo-Christian standard of sexual morality that will ALWAYS and FOREVER be a part of religious liberty. People who care about religious liberty anywhere in the West are never gonna be “down” with the free love scene. If this is seen as icky discrimination by gays or lefty straights or flamboyantly strange chicken nugget eaters or whomever, I really can’t care. Sorry. And neither do all those 500K or so people who showed up Wed. (A lot more than yesterday’s phony kiss-in protest, whatever the real number)

Why you’re dragging the unrelated Austrian economics school into it is beyond me. My point wasn’t geography, but merely that some establishment Washington ‘conservatives” are in agreement with the Left on this, like Krauthammer and Hayes. Which is only reason or example #33,472 of why these guys are not now nor have ever been “conservatives” for all the Fox News bias talk. Other establishment Wash. “cons” like some of those at NR are further to the Right on this issue but want the argument to be neatly restrained and contained in a little box of ‘gay marriage being wrong ONLY in a nonjudgemental way because of the logical link between procreation and marriages of “only” (!) husbands and wives’. Fine, that’s true too, but we really don’t need to run lots of social science studies on that to make up our minds. The PJB’s, the late Joe Sobran’s of the world, and frankly, the millions and millions of tolerant decent Americans (and Christians of the rest of the world) don’t need convincing on this and it’d be nice to be represented in the media. There may be patriotic and honorable soldiers who like a little buggery now and again, but we don’t need to pretend buggery is great for an appreciation of their patriotism.

Icarus-frankly, i can’t be bothered since you seem so confused-I said DADT (and rest of sexual LIBERATIONISM), and religious liberty in Western context were oppositional, not compatible. ??? Don’t waste everyone’s time bringing views of non-western muslim societies about gays into it. Why, they’re as intolerant of gays as gay rights lefties are towards Christians!

#22 Comment By AC On August 4, 2012 @ 4:01 am

OK, maybe I was hastily rude to icarus (love you in phish song jams, btw)…

I should say in correction to above the REPEAL, not existence, of DADT, as well as existence/agenda-for-normalizing-rest-of-sexual-revolution is incompatible w/religious freedom/liberty was my point, and at least repealing DADT alone was supported w/unbounded enthusiasm by adamantly self-described “conservatives” like Charles K; Steve Hayes; David Frum; Margaret Hoover; Michael Potemra, the NR literary editor; David Brooks; frankly, I could come up with five to ten more if I cared to think about it, oh yeah, Michael Smerconish and Andrew Sullivan who at least are comically described as conservatives by our nonpartisan media; ALL of whom, except Potemra get on TV, or CAN get on TV a lot more than PJB does these days….all of these folks were adamant about the rightness and morality of repealing DADT, but are now probably lamely trying to defend Cathy’s right to his own views and Chick-fil-a’s “right” to sell chicken. But they CAN’T now, that’s my point. Once the Right concedes to the Left in this fantasy that it’s still 1958 Alabama in America and all we wanna do everywhere is kill us some effeminate gays, (which even then wasn’t true, but, hey, it’s the Left we’re talkin’ about), then the jig is up, the Left has won another battle, and anything the so-called “reasonable” conservative crowd has to say to contribute to this debate anymore has passed. I don’t care if they’re flooding my TV airwaves with their appearances and their “reasonable” opinions, I just care that they keep showing up on my TV offending my intelligence with the loud propaganda of insisting their reasonable opinions are reasonable “conservative” opinions.

That said, however, it was OBVIOUS, even back in 1992?, 1993, whenever it was, Clinton was just pushing as hard as he could and no harder, because, well, that’s what Gramsci-crowd cultural lefties do. Spare me the WSJ editorial board nonsense of how much more “centrist” WJC was compared to Obama. We were merely significantly to the Right culturally then of where we are now, and Clinton was just being smart. He knew the Left’s limits. In THAT regard, DADT was always a fiction, it was meant to be and emerged as a “waystation” if you will on path to mandatory trained-seal celebration of open homosexuality in our armed forces, again, religious liberty be damned. Indeed, damning religious liberty was ALWAYS exactly the point for these people: the military, especially the USMC, has always had a rather Christian-like ethos of self-sacrifice in its honor code and that can’t be tolerated, now can it? We need a military that celebrates EQUALITY (yeah!) more than anything else unimportant, like superfluous acts of honorable self-sacrifice and courage. Everybody hip and with it knows that, jeez…

All of this is pretty obvious to the average genuine cultural conservative in America. It’s just not so to the Charles K’s and Steven Hayes and David Frums and Margaret Hoovers of the world. Gets irritating don’t you know. We need to make some trades for pitching and hitting ASAP if these guys are our team. Especially when our team is on the satanic supposedly right-wing Fox News. Roger Ailes ain’t giving us our money’s worth with the “debate” on sex and marriage if these guys are the team I’m supposed to root for.

#23 Comment By Philo Vaihinger On August 4, 2012 @ 9:23 am

Scott, you wrote,

“I voted against the gay marriage act in CA. In 2004 (?). Then it was repealed by a homosexual judge! I’m against gay marriage not for religious reasons but because it is just plain bizarre!”

Many people would say the same of homosexuality and bungi-jumping. Not a reason to outlaw or persecute either.

Likewise gay marriage.

You don’t have a really strong liberty-bone, do you?

#24 Comment By Daniel On August 4, 2012 @ 9:24 am

It is useful always to keep in mind that hiding behind fundamentalist condemnations and hatred of homosexuals, whether Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or Jewish, is the explicit commandment of Leviticus 20:13: they must surely be killed. The fine Lutherans and Catholics of Germeny and Austria did a good job of it merely 65 years go, and foreign Muslim states are busy at it today. Christianity has a lot to recommend it, but it also has an appalling history in its treatment of certain minorities, and such minorities might be forgiven their concern about periodic rises of extremist sentiment. Most American Christians probably don’t spend much time reading Leviticus, I know Lutherans certainly don’t, but I suspect the owners of CFA know exactly where in the Bible that particular passage is to be found.

#25 Comment By Plumbline On August 4, 2012 @ 11:06 am

“Now we have the spectacle of a public caning of a private citizen for expressing religious beliefs held by perhaps 100 million American adults.”

More than 100 million, I should think. You don’t have to be Christian, Jew or Moslem to object to homosexual marriage (or homosexuality). The fundamental objection is visceral, not religious.

#26 Comment By Matthew On August 4, 2012 @ 11:22 am

No Pat. Cathy donated large sums of money to block homosexual marriage. That is why the LGBT crowd is angry. PS the “old time religion” justified slavery, witch burning, anti-sodomy laws (google Alan Turing to see what happened) and many other atrocities. It’s time to accept modernity.

#27 Comment By Perry On August 4, 2012 @ 12:26 pm

I AM GAY but I DO NOT APPROVE of this liberal mafia type protest against Chik-fil-A.

I go to church, believe in 2 parent families and think much of what liberal feminism and liberal gay rights is collective cultural insanity.

Single mothers dont work, dont lift their children out of poverty and are burdens upon the taxpayer.

Husbands and fathers are not optional. Children need both genders in functional relationships.

Feminists are unwilling to admit to women that they cant have it all.

Gays are unwilling to admit that accepting the responsibility for children and marriage means relationships lasting more than a weekend or dog years. It also means giving up getting dressed in drag, all public forms of sex fetishes.

People who despise feminism do not despise women.

People who despise the forced public acceptance of gay fetishes do not hate gay people.

One doesnt have to censor or be militant to co-exist in the public sphere.

#28 Comment By Andrew On August 4, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

@Dmitry Alexandrovich. If they push too hard they might find themselves hiding back in the closet like they do in Russia.

They don’t hide and they are actually very active. Another matter that they don’t always get what they want, like the venues of their gay-pride parades. Russian public in general is fairly open about its attitudes towards gays–it is highly negative–but Constitution guarantees equal rights for gays.

#29 Comment By Rossbach On August 4, 2012 @ 10:45 pm

Two points:

1. The reason that Wednesday’s support for Chick-Fil-A was so strong and that Friday’s protest against it flopped is because most Americans (including, I suspect, a majority of gay Americans) still believe in freedom of speech.

2. One of the most disturbing political trends of this past decade is the tendency of Leftists to characterise any opposing view as “hate”, “hateful”, or “hate speech”. Are these people so insecure in their political positions and beliefs that they must always question the motives of anyone who has a different view? Aren’t these the same people who are always preaching to us about “tolerance” and “compassion”? When are they going to display some of these exemplary virtues?

#30 Comment By bluespapa On August 5, 2012 @ 12:10 am

Plumbline said, “You don’t have to be Christian, Jew or Moslem to object to homosexual marriage (or homosexuality). The fundamental objection is visceral, not religious.”

That’s exactly what anti-Semites said about Jews, and coined that term because mere religious differences weren’t scientific enough. It’s as visceral as revulsion if snakes and rats. Perfectly normal to despise, perfectly understandable to deny rights, perfectly rational.

Now getting married is supposedly undermining the family and the very fabric of America–because it’s the wrong people getting married.

#31 Comment By Tom B On August 5, 2012 @ 8:58 am

First off I don’t think this same sex marriage issue has any business being ruled on in our federal courts. I think this entire issue should be left up to the people to decide on. Put it on the November ballot and let the nation if this should go beyond each states jurisdiction.

#32 Comment By Pete On August 5, 2012 @ 8:24 pm

This is a simple 1st Amendment issue; Cathy has a right to express his personal beliefs,without fear of being burned at the stake by those who disagree. The use of State, or city, power to punish that expression by refusing licenses etc. is clearly unconstitutional and should be enjoined by any court. Of course, if gays don’t want to patronize his franchise, that is their decision and right. Duh.

#33 Comment By Joe On August 6, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

“I think this entire issue should be left up to the people to decide on.”

And I think Obamacare should have been left entirely to the legislature. And apparently the Supreme Court agreed.

By people or politicians, ALL laws must obey the constitution. San Francisco voted to ban guns, and that was knocked down by the courts. Or should that “entire issue be left up to the people to decide on” as well?

#34 Comment By Joe On August 6, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

“One of the most disturbing political trends of this past decade is the tendency of Leftists to characterise any opposing view as
‘hate’, ‘hateful’, or ‘hate speech’.”

And characterizing any opposing view as “Leftist” isn’t? Hey, I know a huge number of conservatives who are for marriage equality.

#35 Comment By Joe On August 6, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

“People who despise the forced public acceptance of gay fetishes do not hate gay people.”

Speaking of mischaracterizations.

Nobody is forcing anyone to “public acceptance of gay fetishes.” They just want to be left alone. Hey, look in Iowa. Is there “forced public acceptance of gay fetishes” there? Gay people can get married. Is there any huge push for anything else? At least at a state level, gay people have every single right that straight people do. And you know what? They stopped. There are no massive protests, no legislative pushes for anything. That was it. Gay people just want the same rights as everyone else. Give them what they are entitled to by their birthright as Americans and we’ll all be just fine.

#36 Comment By Shyla On August 6, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

Please note that, despite the claims of propagandists here and everywhere, there is no Christian consensus on same sex marriage or homosexuality.