6 comments on “Chik-fil-a Takes Stance on Gay Marriage??!

  1. The fast food chain doesn’t have a stance! It is an individual opinion of a man, who happens to be in charge of a fast food chain!


      • I am not saying where I agree or disagree with him, but according to your logic, everyone who has a job should keep his or her mouth shot. I believe that everyone can and should state their beliefs when a question is asked (which it was in this case). He expressed this opinion politely and without hate, and instead of a rational dialogue, there was a knee jerk reaction on both sides. We will never achieve any kind of civilized society until people will be just as eager to listen as they are to speak! That’s one of the reason I love this country: I am free to speak, but also a guy, whose words turn my stomach, is allowed to speak, too. I may hate everything he says, stands for and believes in, yet I applaud his right to speak. If his job happens to be running the entire grocery system in the US, I am not going to stop eating or start hating food. If his job is printing US currency, I am not going to hate money or stop using it. I am not going to boycott chicken or chik-fil-a or start eating more beef. He spoke his mind in a civilized and rational manner. Those who oppose him, should do the same and in the same way! The guy is not some kind of lowlife or a horrible human being. He just has a belief system that is different from yours, or mine. Half the country agrees with him, the other half disagrees. The litmus test here is: Did he violate any of your rights or freedoms by speaking his mind? I apologize for my sharp tones, because it contradicts my own belief which is: I WANT A CIVILIZED DISCUSSION. I am tired of hate… I meet people who are diametrically opposite of what I am or believe in. My instincts tell me to hate them. But my intelligence does not allow that, because if I do begin to hate them, I will become ONE OF THEM!


  2. Maybe you are misunderstanding my point. It isn’t so much about his belief system, but about his actions. We all have the “right” to free speech, but that doesn’t make what we’re saying “right”. He chose to reveal his opinion about a very touchy subject. As a human being I can respect his honesty, but as a person I think he made a mistake in doing so. I tend to be neutral about these kind of things because I’m not directly affected, but I’m a firm believer that people deserve the benefit of the doubt. Are you telling me it is acceptable to discriminate against someone just because their views are different? Maybe not you, but Mr. Cathy didn’t have a problem calling out an entire group of people and labeling them as less superior. What is there to discuss? Other than trying to understand a narrow minded persons point of view?


    • There is nothing in the interview that could in any way be construed as hate for anyone or any group. It was reported by the Huffington Post, which was the first to insert the term “same-sex marriage,” which had theretofore not been actually mentioned! “Anti-gay” and “same-sex marriage” made for attention-getting headlines, and the rest of the mainstream media followed along. In fact, Cathy was never asked about same-sex marriage, and thus had no response. He was asked if he supports traditional marriage, and here is the verbatim: “Well, guilty as charged. 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 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.”
      I see no hint of discriminating against anyone or anything. The media created this situation. And I am not 100% sure, but I think this interview was given to some Christian newspaper or newsletter. After that, other entities picked it up with their own commentaries and editorials without context. And the people responded (positively and negatively) to what the reporters and talking heads THOUGHT Dan Cathy meant. I don’t perceive Dan Cathy as someone who thinks himself to be superior to anyone. He was asked a direct question about family. He couldn’t lie or say “no comment”. You are right – there is no discussion possible in this case. The only discussion is the discussion of what was reported.
      While the story contains tons of material defending traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, Cathy never talks about gay rights or gay marriage. Why? Because he wasn’t asked about those issues in the interview. Is a defense of one doctrine automatically the same thing as an on-the-record attack on the opposite doctrine? I think we can only answer this question with a conjecture and speculation. It would only be possible to make a discrimination case if Cathy actually sad something against someone. Media put words in Cathy’s mouth by not making a distinction between what he said and what THEY though he meant.
      Sorry for the lengthy argument, but I just wanted to make a point (tried to make it concise)… Being FOR something doesn’t automatically make you AGAINST another thing. I can choose for myself to abstain from alcohol, but it doesn’t mean I am against others drinking it… (sorry, couldn’t come up with a better illustration)…


  3. I’m not narrow-minded so I can appreciate the value of a good argument. I know you aren’t saying I’m wrong, but the media has played a great role in how this story turned out. After considering all the facts, I understand where my mistake lies and it’s really opened my eyes. Thank you


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s