Have they stopped? All this manufactured outrage has nothing to do with the actual company or the service it provides.

Why would you trust people who cannot make reasonable judgments about people to be able to make and bake reasonably when it comes to food? Personally, I cannot imagine going to a place that treats some people differently than others, and expect them to make sound judgments about what kinds of healthful foods to put on my table or tray.

"Treats some people differently than others"? What on earth are you talking about? There is absolutely no factual basis that anyone, customer or employee, is treated differently at Chic-fil-A. You're confusing your intolerance of one man's personal, religious convictions with how the entire company is run.

If a business chooses to publicly proclaim their religious and political bigotry, I have no problem proclaiming my opposition to their bigotry by boycotting their product. That is MY freedom of speech, my freedom of choice and my using my pocket book to do the same thing the rich do with their pocket books, express my views.

That would be one man, Cathy, who has used his personal and corporate wealth (which came from his customers) to fund the pursuit of legislative discrimination against people who are friends and family. I'm ok with Cathy practicing his faith and being a judgmental prig at church along with other judgmental prigs. No one is forcing him to say hallelujahs to same-sex marriage. No one is forcing his church to "sanctify," if that's what it's called, their marriage. I'm not ok with Cathy projecting his faith in public in ways that encourage legislated bigotry. That legions of dofusses defend him by whining about the blow back shows an utter failure to understand that such bigotry is insidious -- if against one then against all. So, yes, I'm proudly intolerant of Cathy's bigotry.

People do love the buzzword 'bigotry' don't they? Sounds so much more insideous than what it actually is: one guy stating his opinion.

Since when did we all decide that every company we patronize is required to be run by people who all have the same political opinion as us? Do you poll your doctor, mechanic, hair stylist, etc. to make sure they all hold all the same beliefs as you?

The entire nation is turning into a bunch of self-entitled crybabies recently, and on both sides of this issue. Boycotting Chic-fil-A is just as idiotic as boycotting Oreos because of the "gay Oreo" marketing campaign (and yes, it was a marketing campaign) that they ran.

How enlightening...some troll has come around to spout a lot of rhetorical flim-flam and pretend that bigotry is not bigotry.

it's NOT one person voicing their opinion when he uses funds from MY lunch to fund hate groups and anti-gay lobbying groups. That... is organized bigotry. I understand that a bigot never ever sees oneself as a bigot and there are always "It's ok because..." lines to fall back on. Simply put, he uses corporate coffers to fund hatespeech and bigotry.

Gee, you seem to conveniently leave out the fact that he spend the money we give him for chicken to sponsor legislation to deny people civil rights.

That's a little different from just "stating his opinion".

Bigotry works both ways. The people boycotting Chic-fil-A are being bigots towards Dan Cathy's religious beliefs. I don't like the word because it's overused and carries an air of sensationalism.

Does anyone have any factual statistics on how much of Chic-fil-A's $4 billion in revenue goes towards the purported goal of "legislating bigotry"? Or is this just some sensationalized FUD being fed to everyone via biased sources?

The companies official statement (released 7/19) is "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." I don't see any intolerance or bigotry here -- so what are people hoping to accomplish with the boycott, forcing Dan Cathy to alter his ideology to suit their whims?

People stupid enough to hate gay people because of what's in a book that was written when people still thought the earth is flat, are likely also stupid enough to give some of the money you spend at their businesses to hate groups and Republicans.

So the argument is that he uses his money to fund things you don't agree with. Do you check on the spending habits of every single person / company / corporation you give money to, to make sure they're using it in a way you deem appropriate?

This mindset, taken to its logical conclusion, is completely insane.

Also, the idea that he's pouring money into "hate groups" is sensationalized. The company gives millions of dollars to all kinds of charities. The groups in question amount to next to nothing in comparison and the level to which they're attempting to "legislate bigotry" is questionable.

@Guybrush T. Regarding your statement: "Have they stopped? All this manufactured outrage has nothing to do with the actual company or the service it provides."

The way I see it, people have a right to spend their money where they please just as much as a business owner can have opinions about particular social issues and express them. So, what does his opinions have to do with making chicken for people to consume? Nothing just as you stated but if someone as a consumer has a problem with the social attitude of a business owner who decides he wants to express that opinion out loud, then, if a consumer is counter to that opinion, can choose not to send his money into his pockets as a statement of the importance that social stance plays for him or her.

Also applies to investing in companies that perform for the good of society and the planet vs. those that choose to trash it and make life more difficult. I would choose to never support Walmart, for example by either investing in it's stock if it has any, or shop at its stores, no matter how much money I can save. For me money is less important than what that store represents. In other words, Making or Saving money for many people means less then doing what is right in the world.

So the best response I saw that was really quite comical is to not boycott the chicken restaurant, but fill it up on their family night with less traditional families...every family night....Two moms? Two Dads?.....Family!!!!!! Great chicken, we are going to come every week!!!!! Thank you for serving us. Then see how far the owners values get him......money? or kick them all out and ban them so he can stay true to his beliefs, because he doesn't support their lifestyle choice.

It sends a very peaceful, message about public business and private views.

Just as Mr. Cathy has the right to spend his money which ever way he chooses, so do I. As it stands right now, I refuse to help him fund his attacks on me. I'm not forcing him to change his beliefs...I'm sure losing my business won't hurt his bottom line in any way, shape or form. Now tell me why it's ok for him to be as vocal as he is about his beliefs but it's "insane" for people who don't agree with his beliefs and practices to choose NOT to spend their money on his brand??

Rebecca, are you seriously so locked into this inane (dare I say, "prejudiced") conspiracy to think that filling a Chic-fil-A up with homosexual patrons would result in them getting kicked out and banned? That's utterly delusional. Dan Cathy expressed his personal religious beliefs on marriage -- Chic-fil-A's company-wide policy is equal treatment of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Michelle, there's nothing wrong with people not patronizing a business if they don't agree with what it stands for, however this boycott goes beyond that -- it's applying the CEO's personal convictions to the entire company (which as stated by the companies officials is NOT the company's policy when it comes to its treatment of customers) and then actively protesting against it -- presumably to change Dan Cathy's ideology?

It's taking it to a level to which I doubt that the people boycotting Chic-fil-A apply to any other establishment that they patronized. And all this outrage is based on information that's being fed to them through the media's hype machine. I'll bet you dollars to donuts the vast majority of people boycotting Chic-fil-A have absolutely no idea what the actual figures are for the money being donated to organizations they don't agree with. I also question the legitimacy of the claims being made that these organizations are actively "legislating bigotry." Is there proof of this actively occurring? What laws have these organizations successfully passed, using Dan Cathy's money?

Guybrush T.

People do love the buzzword 'bigotry' don't they? Sounds so much more insideous than what it actually is: one guy stating his opinion.

Can you imagine an employee would be comfortable communicating the exact opposite of his views at work , or in front of any manager , after he expressed his views? The head of a corporation is the bully pulpit of that corporation , and that business effects a lot of people and other business's , your trying to act like he said it at a pool party and he works as a cashier

Bigotry is bigotry , no matter how you try and water it down as conservatives , the pro jim crow party strikes again

Those on the right do love to wallow in totally unwarranted self-pity. And it really infuriates them when people call them on it.

I agree, bigotry is bigotry -- and the people boycotting Chic-fil-A because of Dan Cathy's personal, religious beliefs are being intolerant bigots. Chic-fil-A, as a company, does not operate on Dan Cathy's beliefs when it comes to employing or serving. The boycott is based on nothing more than the same style of hatred, intolerance and bigotry that the boycotters are erroneously accusing Chic-fil-A of.

I'd be amazed if those boycotting Chic-fil-A have even the slightest clue about the organizations that Dan Cathy uses his money to donate too -- instead of doing research people are so wrapped up in propagating misinformation about "hate groups" and "legislating bigotry" and other mindless, trumped-up claims. There is no proof that the organizations Chic-fil-A donates to support and anti-gay agenda. If you think there is, please by all means, post the proof here.

Guybrush T.

People do love the buzzword 'bigotry' don't they? Sounds so much more insideous than what it actually is: one guy stating his opinion.

So, supposing for the moment that you're black / Hispanic / Asian / Muslim / Jewish / anything other than lily-white-and-Protestant, if I decided to take money which you'd spent in my store, money which you had handed to me, and I trn around and donate it to the Ku Klux Klan, an organization which is vocally vociferously and violently opposed to "your kind" of people having any civil rights at all...

... you'd presumably be "okay-fine" with that?

How 'bout if I donate that money to the New Black Panther Party? Still alright with that?

Cool. You want fries with that? I'll happily take your money.

Guybrush T. --

There is absolutely no factual basis that anyone, customer or employee, is treated differently at Chic-fil-A.

I'm going to be generous here and assume that you are simply and utterly ignorant here, as oppoxsed to deliberately lying.

There is considerable factual basis that Chick-Fil-A is a sexist and homophobic organization, one which has engaged in sex discrimination and abuse of women and which consistently refuses to answer when questioned as to whether it treats gay / lesbian employees differently than heterosexual employees - or whether it even tolerates hiring gays or lesbians at all.

It doesn't matter worth a good god d^^n what their so-called "official statement" is, it ONLY matters what THEY ACTUALLY DO.

And on that score, the evidence against them is daunting: lawsuits filed against them by women who allege that Chick-Fil-A actually FIRED THEM BECAUSE THE COMPANY WANTED THEM TO "go home and be mothers" INSTEAD OF WORKING!

Brenda Honeycutt, Former Chick-Fil-A Employee, Sues Restaurant Over Gender Discrimination

Chick-fil-A, the now notoriously anti-gay fast-food chain, is once again involved more controversy, this time involving gender discrimination.

Brenda Honeycutt, a former employee of a Chick-fil-A establishment in Georgia, is suing the restaurant for wrongful termination, alleging that she is a victim of gender discrimination, according to GLAAD.

The lawsuit, which was obtained by GLAAD, refers to a June 27, 2011, incident in which Jeff Howard, the owner and operator of a Duluth, Ga., Chick-fil-A, fired Honeycutt so she could be a "stay home mother."

According to the document, Howard held meetings without Honeycutt present and eventually replaced her with a male employee. Her termination is allegedly part of a pattern of gender discrimination "against female employees" at the Duluth establishment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/brenda-honeycutt-chick-fil-a-sues-gender-discrimination_n_1709645.html

Guybrush T.

Chic-fil-A's company-wide policy is equal treatment of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

It's very easy to provide so-called "equal treatment of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation" when there's only ONE sexual orientation tolerated in their workplace.

Kindly prove that Chic-Fil-A hires anyone whose sexual orientation is anything whasoever other than "hetero".

I don't give a d@mn what they "say".

I don't give a d@mn what their "Official Company Policy" is.

I'm telling you to PROVE that they hire gays or lesbians.

I'd rather talk about reality and the actual issue at hand instead of your exaggerated, nonsense examples.

Dan Cathy's personal beliefs aren't enforced by Chic-fil-A. The company has stated clearly and officially that it does not discriminate based on race, religion, creed or sexual orientation and intends to leave the debate of same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

You seem to have some issues with rhetoric. I don't need to prove that Chic-fil-A hires gays and lesbians. As someone claiming that company-wide sexual orientation discrimination occurs, the burden of proof lies on you. An article citing a bunch of alleged claims doesn't serve as proof.

I'd rather talk about reality and the actual issue at hand instead of your exaggerated, nonsense examples.

Lawsuits are not "exaggerated nonsense". The company is being sued for its discriminatory behavior.

The company has stated clearly and officially that it does not discriminate based on race, religion, creed or sexual orientation

I don't give a d@mn what they "say". It doesn't matter worth a flying bucket of warm cat urine what they "say". It ONLY matters what they ACTUALLY DO.

You have been asked to provide proof or evidence that they actually "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk" and that they even have any gay or lesbian employees at all. Apparently you are unable to provide that evidence and are now reduced to depserately trying to change the subject.

Aside from an allegation as yet unproven in court via Jury decision or out-of-court settlement, has Chick Fill A been proven to discriminate agains anyone yet? If so, I'd like to see some proof.

Dan Cathy's personal beliefs aren't enforced by Chic-fil-A.

Prove it.

Apparently those beliefs are indeed being enforced by Chic-Fil-A. If that were not the case, there would not be lawsuits against the company from women who were fired because a company representative wanted them to go home and make babies instead of being in the workforce. If I were the company's legal representative, I'd be making major-league efforts to settle out of court right about now. The company is facing huge potential damages for violations of laws against sex discrimination.

Since you obviously didn't bother to read the link or information provided, I'll spell it out for you: The Chic-Fil-A manager, who fired the woman, put it in writing that he was firing her because he wanted her to stay home and look after babies instead of working.

When I said "exaggerated nonsense" I was talking about your attempt to draw a comparison to one man's opinion of marriage and the KKK. Chic-fil-A isn't organizing Klan meets.

But even so, lawsuits are very frequently exaggerated nonsense -- that's where the term "frivolous litigation"comes from. There's no proof that the lawsuit you reference is anything more than that.

As I said before, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that something you're claiming exists does indeed exist. Not my problem if you don't understand logic.

Exaggerated nonsense is trying to draw a comparison to one man's opinion of marriage and the KKK. Chic-fil-A isn't organizing Klan meets.

Actually yes, in a sense, they are. Chic-Fil-A is donating money to an organization that has been designated as a hate group because of its attacks on gays and lesbians.

As I said, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that something you're claiming exists does indeed exist.

As I said, the burden of proof is actually on you, and you have failed to meet it. Kindly prove that the company even has any gay or lesbian employees or else kindly STFU.

Apparently the corporation has a problem with non-Christians, too:

Muslim Sues Chick-Fil-A for Discrimination

A Muslim former employee of a Christian-based fast-food chain has sued the company claiming religious bias. In a lawsuit filed Monday, Houston resident Aziz Latif, 25, said Chick-fil-A's Christian stance runs deeper than simply being closed on Sundays, "The Houston Chronicle" reported.

Latif alleges that the Atlanta-based chain's corporate purpose to glorify God discriminates against its non-Christian employees. Latif claims he was fired a day after he refused to pray to Jesus during a training session in November 2000.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2002/10/Muslim-Sues-Chick-Fil-A-For-Discrimination.aspx

And apparently the corporation has a problem with women of color who won't put out, as well:

Women accuse Chick-fil-A manager of sexual harassment

CHULA VISTA, Calif. - A lawsuit filed Thursday claims four former employees
of Chick-fil-A in Chula Vista were sexually harassed, fired, then reported to
immigration.

Norma Duarte said she is filing a lawsuit after her boss harassed her several
times in a back area of the Chick-fil-A restaurant at 2089 Olympic Parkway in
Eastlake Terraces.

"He would put me in the refrigerator, and he would touch me and grope me,"
Duarte said.

Gustavo Angulo, the restaurant's manager, repeatedly harassed her and three
other female employees over the past two years, Duarte said.

The women allege in their lawsuit that when they complained to the restaurant's
owner, Mandy Medlin, they were ignored. They also claim Chick-fil-A's corporate
headquarters ignored their complaints and instead of taking action to stop the harassment, the three of the women were fired.

According to the women, management also reported them to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection in an attempt to have them deported.

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-4-women-claim-they-were-sexually-harassed-at-chickfila-20120105,0,2055463.story

Chic-Fil-A is donating money to an organization that has been designated as a hate group because of its attacks on gays and lesbians

Attacks on gays and lesbians? Do you even know what foundation Chic-fil-A donates to? It's the WinShape foundation. They provide scholarships for education, foster homes, sponsor missions trips inside and outside of the US and hold corporate and marriage retreats.

The only "attack" (and I only use that word because it's what you used to describe what they do) on gays and lesbians is that they're a Christian organization and believe in a Biblical definition of marriage, aside from that they don't do anything to "attack" gays and lesbians or pass legislation against homosexuals. Where are you getting your information from? Or did you not even do any research into this at all?

Chick-Fil-A Fast Food Chain Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009

Want a side order of anti-gay rhetoric with your chicken sandwich?

Chik-Fil-A might be able to help you with that.

According to EqualityMatters.org, the fast food company donated nearly $2 million in 2009 to groups that have anti-gay agendas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/chick-fil-a-donated-anti-gay-groups-2009_n_1069429.html

Attacks on gays and lesbians? Do you even know what foundation Chic-fil-A donates to?

Yes, I do. Do you? Do you even have a clue? Apparently not!

Let's look at the contributions which Chick-Fil-A made, to whom, and what those groups do with that money:

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY - COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.
No one has spread the anti-gay gospel as widely, or with as much political impact, as James Dobson, the former child development professor and spanking enthusiast who founded Focus on the Family (FOF) in 1977.

On Focus' 47-acre campus in Colorado Springs, some 1,300 employees battle against gay rights, sex education and women's rights with an enormous annual budget of $130 million. Dobson's radio show, dispensing homespun parenting advice along with jabs at "the militant homosexual agenda," is heard daily on more than 9,000 radio stations worldwide, giving him an estimated listening audience of more than 200 million.

Focus' president from 2003 to early 2005, Don Hodel, formerly served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior and head of the Christian Coalition, and now chairs the Council for National Policy, a secretive group of America's most powerful right-wing leaders that Dobson formerly chaired.

As early as 1989, Dobson came under attack from a fellow conservative evangelical, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who accused him of "reprehensible" and "homophobic" use of false information about how AIDS is transmitted. But Focus began to really flex its anti-gay political muscles in 1992, when Dobson used his radio show to turn Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 (see Holy War) into a fundamentalist cause célèbre.

Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF's Web site is a Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: "Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them." Another article claims that "the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids."

According to a 1997 book by former FOF staffer Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Dobson once said, "Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyle, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?" He has also recommended parents withdraw from Parent-Teacher Associations because they allegedly have a liberal social agenda.

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL - WASHINGTON, D.C.

In 1988, James Dobson's Focus on the Family mega-ministry merged with the Family Research Council (FRC), a tiny Washington think tank headed by Gary Bauer, a former Department of Education official. With Focus' millions behind it, FRC's profile shot up as Bauer brought Dobson's anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-sex education messages to leaders on Capitol Hill.

When FRC's lobbying threatened Focus' tax-exempt status in 1992, the groups severed their legal ties. But by then, FRC had become a powerful group in its own right.

During the gays-in-the-military debate of 1993, Bauer wrote an influential op-ed alleging that gay people's "notion of 'civil rights' would mean a jackboot on the back of the 99 percent of society that still follows the norms of nature."

Robert Knight, FRC's chief anti-gay researcher during the 1990s (see also Concerned Women for America), claimed that the gay rights movement's main goal was "going after the kids."

Drawing liberally on the discredited research of Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute), Knight published papers claiming, among other things, that gay people view "pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." FRC also cited Cameron's bogus claim that children in gay households are at greater risk of sexual involvement with a parent. In a legal brief, it even warned that schools offering diversity education could be sued for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The FRC led boycotts and protests when major corporations began to give domestic-partner benefits; in 1997, Knight lambasted American Airlines for its "immoral" benefits program, asking, "What are you going to develop next? A pedophilia market?"

Former Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins, a "family values" crusader who had given a speech to the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001, took over the FRC's leadership in 2003. By then, the FRC was well established in Washington, with board members like Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, an OB/GYN who in his 2004 campaign falsely claimed that guards had to be posted inside some public school restrooms to protect girls from lesbian sex attacks.

The FRC's current senior fellow for cultural studies, Timothy Dailey, has taken over Knight's role as FRC's main anti-gay propagandist, comparing gays to "abnormal cells," co-authoring Getting It Straight, a "statistical" compendium of the "evils" of homosexuality, and penning Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle, yet another lurid FRC publication.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army?page=0,1#8

Do you realize how utterly insane this argument is? Chic-fil-A donates a total of $13.5K to an organization that has espoused some "anti-gay" sentiments, out of $4,500,000,000 in revenue -- that's 0.000003% of their revenue! It's quite literally almost nothing.

To put it in perspective: if you won $100,000 it'd be like giving three pennies to charity. And this is what people are losing their minds over? This is the drastic level of "anti-gay hate" that Chic-fil-A is propagating with their donations?

Guybrush,

Do you realize how obvious it is that you are a totally shameless homophobe trying and failing miserably to defend the indefensible? You probably do and don't care. Homophobes are like that.

Do you realize how utterly insane this argument is

Do you realize how utterly threadbare your lies are?

Chick-Fil-A donates money to right-wing so-called "Christian" organizations which, completely contrary to your false and lying claim that they "they don't do anything to "attack" gays and lesbians or pass legislation against homosexuals",

- ARE rabidly homophobic,

- DO try to attack gays and lesbians' rights legally and politically,

- DO spread rabid anti-gay propaganda and

- DO try to create or influence the adopting of anti-gay legislation.

Everything you claimed about Chick-Fil-A has been exposed for the lies that they are.

You are dismissed.

Guybrush T.

There is no proof that the organizations Chic-fil-A donates to support and anti-gay agenda. If you think there is, please by all means, post the proof here.

DONE.

I have posted PROOF, IN WRITING, COMPLETE WITH LINKS, that the organizations Chic-fil-A donates to, DO INDEED PROUDLY SUPPORT AN ANTI-GAY AGENDA.

YOU LOSE.

You are dismissed.

Have you looked at the Marriage & Family Foundation? Nearly 1.2 mil went to them. Check out their web site. Two of the top three priority's are to deny equal protection to gays and to deny benefits to domestic partners. I'm not aware that they've made the Southern Poverty Law Center's list as a hate group yet but in company with the others it becomes pretty clear where they Chick fil a stands.

Somebody needs to go LeChuck on this faux Guybrush's backside. What is it with these jerks that they refuse to understand that speech is a two-way thing? They can speak their minds, but if someone answers back, that persecution! Just how many kinds of stupid can one person be?

Sorry Willy, but you've done no such thing. What you have proven is that out of Chic-fil-A's charitable donations, an infinitesimal amount goes to organizations that do not support gay marriage.

Not supporting gay marriage is not the same as having an "anti-gay agenda" (as much as you'd like to spin it that way) -- saying that not supporting gay marriage is the same as having an "anti-gay agenda" is a logical fallacy (the "either or" fallacy -- i.e. "either you support us or you're against us"). Try again.

What is it with these jerks that they refuse to understand that speech is a two-way thing?

What? The very nature of this boycott is setting up a culture for demanding that freedom of speech not be allowed. Dan Cathy was asked a question and when he answered with his opinion people lost their @!$%# over it ... including city officials abusing their power by intentionally blocking Chic-fil-A from opening franchises.

No one's saying people shouldn't be able to express how they feel about Dan Cathy's opinion. People are free to think he's a bigot and an idiot and free to stop patronizing his company's chains -- however, people are taking that to an extreme level by trying to damage his business financially (blocking his ability to obtain building permits) and demanding that he renounce his beliefs (Thomas Manino regarding what Dan Cathy would have to do before he'd be allowed a permit). Who's anyone to demand that he renounce his beliefs before being able to obtain a business permit?

What you have proven is that out of Chic-fil-A's charitable donations, an infinitesimal amount goes to organizations that do not support gay marriage.

Are you too stupid to breathe?

The organizations Chick-Fil-A donates money to, spend hundreds of millions of dollatrs creating antigay propaganda, spreading lies alleging that "gays molest children" (they don't) and doing their best to help pass laws that un-do laws providing civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Do you understand the difference between "not supporting gay marriage" versus "ACTIVELY WORKING TO OVERTURN laws that protect gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT THEY'RE GAY", you clueless wonder?

You are too much of a coward even to admit when you've been nailed for lying. You are truly pathetic.

Wait, so now you're claiming that despite Chic-fil-A only donating $1.7mil to assorted charities, that they're somehow responsible for "Hundreds of millions of dollars" of creating anti-gay propaganda? You're just pulling numbers out of your @$$ as you fly down the slippery slope of your logical fallacy. Give it a rest.

You really ARE too stupid to breathe, aren't you?

Chick-Fil-A DID NOT "only" donate $13,000 dollars to anti-gay groups. They donated nearly $2 MILLION.

Here's the proof, you Moron:

Chick-Fil-A Fast Food Chain Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009

According to EqualityMatters.org, the fast food company donated nearly $2 million in 2009 to groups that have anti-gay agendas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/chick-fil-a-donated-anti-gay-groups-2009_n_1069429.html

The GROUPS THEY DONATE money to, in turn, SPEND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHICH "THEY" RECEIVE IN DONATIONS, creating lying anti-gay propaganda ("they molest children and bring them into the gay lifestyle" - bull**** and lies), promulgating hatred of gays and lesbians, and actively seeking to overturn legal protections for gays and lesbians alal over the country.

Here in turn is the proof of THAT:

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY - COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.
No one has spread the anti-gay gospel as widely, or with as much political impact, as James Dobson, the former child development professor and spanking enthusiast who founded Focus on the Family (FOF) in 1977.

On Focus' 47-acre campus in Colorado Springs, some 1,300 employees battle against gay rights, sex education and women's rights with an enormous annual budget of $130 million.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army?page=0,1#8

Now, is that simple enough for you to follow, or do I need to explain it to you with Crayola markers and an Etch-A-Sketch ?

Slippery slope buddy, look it up. You can't turn "nearly $2 million" into "hundreds of millions" just because the organization has a budget of $130mil -- that's idiotic. Not all of that "nearly $2mil" was donated to Focus on the Family -- $12.5k was, check your own post earlier. Also, James Dobson hasn't run Focus on the Family for 9 years, so using him as a reason Focus on the Family is "anti-gay" is another logical fallacy ("genetic fallacy").

Chic-fil-A has publicly stated, "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena." What more do you want? To burn every franchise to the ground?

Also, James Dobson hasn't run Focus on the Family for 9 years, so using him as a reason Focus on the Family is "anti-gay" is another logical fallacy

"Focus On The Family" being an anti-gay hate-group is not "just" because of the presence or non-presence of Dobson himself on the staff. They're an anti-gay hate group because of WHAT THEY DO.

Did "Focus On The Family" STOP disseminating anti-gay propaganda and lies AFTER James Dobson separated himself from the organization?

YES?

Or NO?

Answer the question, please.

If you have the guts.

What more do you want? To burn every franchise to the ground?

They could start by:

• publicly refusing to support conservative "Christian" / RePUG / anti-gay organizations

• publicly withdrawing their support from "Focus On The Family" and other anti-gay groups

• apologizing publicly for their past support for conservative "Christian" / RePUG / anti-gay organizations

• apologizing publicly for past acts of discrimination against gays, lesbians and/or women in general

• acknowledging and admitting their past bad behavior and support for anti-gay discrimination

• settling out of court and offering generous settlements to gays, lesbians and anyone else that Chick-Fil-A has previously discriminated against

• making a generous and very public donation to organizations that actively work to combat anti-gay discrimination.

What's your definition of "anti-gay propaganda"? Anything that doesn't fully support gays? They believe in one man, one woman marriage as is their constitutional right -- just as much as it's your constitutional right to believe in same-sex marriage. Labeling anything that takes an opposing position to your own as "hate" is disingenuous.

Why on earth should a company pander to your specific political / ideological views?

That list is as crazy as demanding that groups like GLAAD or EqualityMatters apologize for going on hateful, religiously intolerant, anti-Christian witch-hunts. They're just as bad as you claim Focus on the Family of being -- just on the other side of the issue. They scour the Internet, looking for things to blow out of proportion and claim are "attacks" on gays so they can whip people into an angry mob.

Have you seen where they dug up Dan Cathy's comments? It was on a small, Christian newspaper site. Not in a Chic-fil-A press release or a public announcement on the company's policy -- nope, they dug it out of the final paragraphs of a much larger interview and spun it to make it sound like a targeted and deliberate attack on gays, when it was actually just a response to an interview question.

What's your definition of "anti-gay propaganda"?

• Fabricating vicious and hateful lies about gays and lesbians, for starters.

• Falsely claiming that gays "prey on children" or "indoctrinate children into the gay 'lifestyle' " (an utter lie).

• Calling for gay men to be jailed and prosecuted for engaging in consensual sex with each other.

• Fabricating false and lying claims of how the AIDS virus is transmitted, an act so reprehensible in its breathtaking outrageousness that Dobson and "Focus On The Family" were publicly and personally reprimanded for their lies by no less than the Surgeon-General of The United Sttaes, C. Everett Koop.

• Falsely and lyingly claiming that gays having sex was a "public health threat".

• Spending millions of dollars to lobby in support of Amendment 2 in Colorado, which repealed anti-discrimination ordinances in several Colorado cities and prohibited Colorado communities from banning discrimination against gays and lesbians on the basis of their sexual orientation. They lobbied in favor of being able to fire gay and lesbian employees, evict gay and lesbian tenants, and engage in other forms of discrimination against gays & lesbians, for no reason other than their sexual orientation.

All of those things are the actions consistent with being a hate group and engaging in anti-gay propaganda.

That list is as crazy as demanding that groups like GLAAD or EqualityMatters apologize for going on hateful, religiously intolerant, anti-Christian witch-hunts.

Prove that GLAAD or EqualityMatters ever engaged in "hateful, religiously intolerant, anti-Christian witch-hunts" or else kindly sit down and shut the **** up, Liar.

Prove that GLAAD or EqualityMatters ever went after "all" Christian organizations -- as opposed to ONLY opposing those so-called "Christian" organizations that engaged in campaigns of hate and intolerance against gays and lesbians.

Why on earth should a company pander to your specific political / ideological views?

Because, if they don't, we're going to crush your "pweshus and speshul" gay-and-lesbian-hating, discrimination-loving, Jesus-freak "Chick-Fil-A" company into the dirt where they belong.

Chick-Fil-A's public image is falling faster than a seagull with a boulder tied to its legs - especially with younger people and especially in areas outside of the Deep South. There's a brand-new generation, one which accepts gays and lesbians as being born the way they are and which has a low tolerance for discrimination.

FAUX News is whining and all a-flutter that this hateful organization is getting the glaring unfriendly publicity that it deserves and trying desperately to stop a controversy which its own spokesman triggered.

Chick-fil-A Boycotters are Winning as Fox News Attacks the Boycott as Un-American

As a new survey reveals that the Chick-Fil-A boycott is causing the brand to nosedive, Fox News is attacking the boycotters as un-American.

.....

The reality is that the boycott is working. A new YouGov Brand Index Survey has found that the consumer perception of Chick-fil-A has taken a nosedive in all regions of the country. Chick-fil-A’s brand score has gone from 65, which was 19 points above average on a scale of 100, to 39 last Wednesday. Their brand has plunged from a score of 80 before Cathy’s comments to 44. The brand has dropped most in the Northeast, where it has gone from a 76 to a 35.

The un-American line has been used with zero success against the ALEC, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh boycotts.

When the right starts screaming un-American, that means the boycotters are winning.

http://www.politicususa.com/chick-fil-a-boycotters-winning-fox-news-attacks-boycott-un-american.html

Heh, Chic-fil-A isn't going anywhere. It'll take a minor PR hit for a bit and then people will forget all about this boycott -- in a couple weeks it'll be business as usual. That's how this works.

Proof that organizations like GLAAD and EqualityMatters go on witch-hunts? I've already mentioned -- the fact that they ripped an out-of-context soundbite from an interview in a Christian newspaper (why on earth were they even on this site? Oh, to find some good kindling for sparking outrage, no doubt) and spun it to sound like Dan Cathy was making targeted, anti-gay statements. Have you read the article? Here's a link: http://www.brnow.org/News/July-2012/%E2%80%98Guilty-as-charged,%E2%80%99-Dan-Cathy-says-of-Chick-fil-A

Ohh, they're going somewhere, alright :)

Heh-heh-heh... Chick-Fil-A will be headed for bankruptcy in a while. Or, more likely, they'll get sold off to a different company, one which will put a lot of money in its' founders' pockets to make them go away. Once that happens, anyone and everyone within the company who ever supported or enforced Chick-Fil-A's anti-gay / anti-woman policies will be gone. Willingly or not.

So, yet AGAIN, you have utterly NO "proof" whatsoever that GLAAD and EqualityMatters ever engaged in "witchhunts" against "ALL" Christian organizations, as opposed to focuing specifically on those conservative so-called "Christian" / RePUG / conserva-puke organizations that engage in and promote discrimination against gays and lesbians. What a "surprise".

The articles you've linked go back to 2011, 2005 and all the way back to 2002 ... and guess what? Chick-fil-A is still around and doing better now than ever. This manufactured controversy is going to fizzle and disappear.

Good luck auditing every cent you spend, trying to make sure it doesn't somehow wind up in the pocket of someone you disagree with.

Everybody keeps saying, "He is entitled to his opinion and he stated his beliefs, that's all. And he should be allowed to voice his opinion." Yes, would you all feel the same if he had donated a million to the KKK and went around telling people that black people are developmentally slow and don't do well in school. Its his opinion and then he donated a million dollar to an American Nazi group that thinks Jewish people are greedy b*stards, and they should be required to wear a Jewish star on their armbands. those were opinions. People should be allowed to express their viewpoint and donate any money they wish, since its their money. sure, and my right is to never go to Chick Fil A and tell my friends why I won't go there. My friends, I can guarantee you, will never go there either.

In Iowa, there is a franchise group of restaurants called Pizza Ranch. the owner of Pizza Ranch is a very religious Dutch Reformed Christian. but I have never heard a comment from the owners or their families regarding any of their beliefs. I know what they believe, because I know their Church. But if they donate money to any causes, I don't know what they are. Nobody cares. They make good pizza buffets. but we all know they are closed on Sundays and every religious Holiday. I am sure that the owners do not believe in marriage equality and they believe that certain lifestyles are living in sin. But you just don't hear about it from anybody around them.

Organizations like Focus on the Family are not equatable to the KKK ... they're not sending out members to lynch gays in the street. Why does everyone keep going to these extreme examples?

The only reason you know of Dan Cathy's beliefs is because some people have taken it upon themselves to scour through a Christian website, looking for things to be outraged about. Dan Cathy's comments on marriage weren't taken from a press release or from a public announcement relating to Chic-fil-A's company policy -- they were extracted from the tail-end of an interview he did on a small Christian newspaper site (The Biblical Recorder). Then they were spun to make it sound like he was coming out with this publicly damning, anti-gay statement, when in fact he was just stating his own personal beliefs (as a response to a question posed to him) and actually seemed to try pretty hard not to make it a statement about what he thinks other people should believe.

If the same people / organizations who took it upon themselves to blow this issue out of proportion were to find out about Pizza Ranch, I'm quite certain you'd know all about the owner's religious beliefs and how "hate filled" they are. Oh wait, they're already at it: http://akopsa.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/the-pizza-ranch-blue-bunny-and-bob-vander-plaats/

This troll is a particularly egregious example of how aggressively malicious those on the right can be.

Here's a clue for the morally/ethically challenged: Religious belief cannot justify bigotry. No passage in any religious book can justify bigotry.

Bigots tend to get very upset when one of their number is found out and starts to suffer well-deserved negative consequences.

It's fun to pull moral/ethical platitudes out your hat, isn't it?

The definition of "bigotry" is the total intolerance of a viewpoint differing than your own, related to race, religion or opinion.

Here's an example: The people who've decided to skewer Dan Cathy for his religious views are bigots. Not a hard concept to grasp. A case could be made that trying to spin the definition of "bigotry" to only apply to people you disagree with is in and of itself bigotry.

Guybrush T.

Organizations like Focus on the Family are not equatable to the KKK ... they're not sending out members to lynch gays in the street.

How would you know? Are you a member of "Focus On The Family"? Please elaborate on where your "expertise" and "knowledge" of "Focus On The Family" activities. There have been beatingss, assaults on gays, even murders of gays and lesbians. Can you prove none of those acts were committed by "Focus On The Family" members?

"Focus On The Family" sends out members to lobby lawmakers and try to pass legislation stripping away legal protections for gays and lesbians. They seek to make it legal for employers to fire people who are gay, for landlords to refuse to rent to gays and/or to evict gay tenants, for school boards to fire teachers who are gay.

Do us a favor and just have the cojones to publicly acknowledge your position - just have the guts, for once in your life, to come right out and say "I believe gays should be fired from teaching positions just because they're gay, I believe gays should be refused rentals by anyone who is a 'Christian' and objects."

Admit your bigotry. if you have the guts for it.

You've already gone from claiming "There is no proof that Chikc-Fil-A gave money to organizations opposed to gay rights" to "Well, it was ONLY $13,500" to "Well, yeah, he gave the money to those organizations, but you can't prove they're hate-groups". BS. Your lies are becoming more and more desperate as you get repeatedly caught in falsehoods.

The definition of "bigotry" is the total intolerance of a viewpoint differing than your own, related to race, religion or opinion.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation.

Seeking to strip away legal protections and civil rights from a specific group of people (i.e. gays and lesbians) for no reason other than your intolerance of and hatred of their sexual orientation, is a perfect example of bigotry.

"Focus On The Family" seeks to change laws, to allow school districts to legally fire gay and lesbian teachers from teaching positions in public schools.

"Focus On The Family" seeks to allow landlords to legally refuse to rent to gays and lesbians.

"Focus On The Family" seeks to allow landlords to evict gay or lesbian tenants, for no reason other than that they are gays or lesbians.

"Focus On The Family" seeks to re-entact and re-enforce decades-old sodomy laws that criminalized consensual sex between gay men, between lesbian women.

"Focus On The Family" seeks to imprison gays and lesbians, for engaging in mutually consensual sex.

They are bigots of the highest and most repugnant order.

This is the organization that Chick-Fil-A donates money to and actively supports.

And yet another troll tries to pass off malicious misinformation as a "differing opinion/point of view/whatever" and also to pretend that a virulent victimizer is a victim. They never get tired of that one no matter how obviously false it is. This is most emphatically not a simple disagreement, it is a matter of right and wrong, and repeated homophobic behavior is viciously wrong.

Hey Gaybrush,

Ever hear of town meetings to hear concerns about putting a new business in before granting the permit?

I have to say, you have some chutzpah to say that people have a right to put a business in wherever they want REGARDLESS of what the folks who LIVE THERE say.

This is not a church. This is a chain junk food peddler that I for one would NEVER MISS if they were not in my town, which they are not.

I would hope if they ever tried to peddle their fried chicken in this town, there would be a public organized to oppose it. Our county and many nearby did NOT PASS the bigoted Prop 8, trying to nullify my legal marriage certificate. This guy will never get my money for anything and I hope they learn that their fighting to push their religion over my rights and religion is a VERY bad business plan.

All this pretending that your beliefs are being attacked is so far out of bounds the penalty flags are all over the field. Your rights to believe something are NOT under attack. It can be said the same thing, MY religious beliefs are under attack by those that don't agree with ME. My religion does not believe what your religion believes. So am I having my religious beliefs attacked because your church follows doctrine X and mine follows doctrine Y?

You are trying to make the argument that yours is right and mine is wrong.

Ah, the irony of hateful anti-religious bigots thinking that their hatred is justified, while the hatred of those they oppose is not. You're no different than the "Million Moms."

Also, just for the record, I've never said that I agree with Dan Cathy's beliefs. I'm merely defending his ability to state them and in doing so [many of] you have decided that I must have the exact same ideology as Cathy and therefore must be derided for my bigotry and hatred of gays. It's proof that you view anyone who disagrees with you as someone who hates you, which is a skewed and logically fallacious way of viewing the world.

What a crock! In all that petulant self-pity and grotesque misrepresentation I see something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is therefore in all probability a duck. Those on the right typically think they can get away with anything because they are entitled, doncha know.

Gaybrush/The victim card... again?

Yes, EntropyRules. the entitlement is the problem

You continue to prove my point loud and clear with your own bigotry. You have no clue what my beliefs are on gay rights, because you've never asked. You've simply stereotyped what you believe my beliefs to be, based on your prejudice. And now you're reacting to this fact exactly like the ultra conservative wingnuts you rail against: denial and entitlement. Amazing.

Somebody call the waaahhhmbualance for Guywhoozis! He's been severely picked on! I'm playing "Hearts & Flowers" on the world's smallest violin just for him!

Playground insults now? How adorable. By all means, keep going; you're doing wonderfully. I believe the final step at removing any shred of credibility you may have had is to call me "Hitler."

I'm not the only one who has noticed the way you play the "victim card". It is an all-too-common character defect of those on the right.

Gaybrush

I'm pretty much staying out of this because anything I could think of to say is already being said by others. Except this: I absolutely hate that this little oik is using this name. Guybrush Threepwood is the main/playable character of the Monkey Island games. That Guybrush is a mensch. For a pirate. This Guybrush making an ass of himself here is the exact opposite. That someone would be so vile under the name of an innately likable character is idiotic and displays a complete lack of self-awareness, like putting out child porn under the name of Mary Poppins.

Although I was mistaking the name, it might be best I did, since that character seems out of bounds for his moniker.

Defect on the right? Again, you've absolutely no clue of my politics. You don't even know if I agree with Dan Cathy -- you just assume I do because you're too wrapped up in your prejudice.

I'll give you a hint though (despite the fact that you seem completely unconcerned with an intelligent discussion): I don't agree with Dan Cathy, but I also don't agree with the subversive methods in which his freedoms are being encroached on.

You seem to be unable to separate the issues though. This trait is notoriously employed by the religious right (who you apparently seem to know everything about) ... perhaps you're actually an ultra-conservative wingnut, parading as someone interesting in equal rights, just to make them look just as intolerant and bigoted? If so, you're doing a bang-up job.

Although I was mistaking the name, it might be best I did, since that character seems out of bounds for his moniker.

Actually, I'm cool with your 'mistake'. After all, in the games other characters screw up Guybrush's name all the time, often intentionally. Life imitates art. Or at least game design. I'm just going to ignore our Gorbush Sheepgood.

And since I can't think of a better place for this, I'll just post this here. Earlier today ThinkProgress put up a long (for them) piece under the headline Chick-fil-A And The Conservative Appropriation Of Christianity As An Anti-Gay Wedge. I think it's worth reading, and not only because I agree with it.

Hahaha!!! It's true, the slip was appropriate! I'm not a gamer, but I love Lucas and Pixar, the local flair of it for me is even more endearing.

And, it appears to be "official doctrine" to play the "religious persecution" card.

That reminds me. I saw this on Religion Dispatches on the theme of how the repeal of DADT was going to infringe on the religious freedom of military chaplains. Turns out, that's sort of correct, but not in the way the religious right would prefer anyone to think.

Oh, I feel so sorry for those with persecution complexes, but not in the way they would like me to.

I think this is a losing proposition, to force people to leave the churches. I think that website gaychurch.org shows more than doubling of affirming churches (registering with them) from 2003 to 2011.

The gaming is a bit lost on me. I could barely play pacman, but I did like playing Wii, loved Star Trek and a bit geeky, otherwise.

The momentum is definitely in the right direction, which is probably why the other (and losing) side is getting so shrill.

Most of the current type of games aren't my thing. Too much depends on timing and reflex. I prefer the sort where you can stop and think: Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, The Longest Journey, Runaway, Sam & Max, that sort of thing.

So, when you say "persecution complex" are you talking about people with specific beliefs labeling anyone with contrary beliefs as "hateful, intolerant bigots" and any group that seeks to uphold contrary beliefs as "hate groups" -- or does that term only work in one direction?

Typical troll...totally shameless to the end.

Typical zealot...doesn't see own glaring hypocrisy.

"Laura Gorman of Austin, Texas, sends this picture of her wife, Just Kusko, proving that funny is one of the best ideas in civic action." - Priceless...

Gaybrush, you are relentless. Now are you really asking me a question or just taking my words and twisting them to suit your own little project? It seems like your entire time on this topic has been to prove this Cathy is a victim, then you seem to take on the victimhood to yourself. I am not sure when you are talking to me, but this time I can tell you were.

My brother was often feeling persecuted and it bugged me. RIP dear brother, but it saddens me to see people doing that, when they are not being victimized. Facing consequences of actions, whether positive or negative.

Beliefs were stated and consequences ensued. Now he is a victim? Is it because his religious beliefs are attacked, or is it that he worked toward limiting marriage (including those already made?) with donating money to Groups that actively fight what WE believe in and feel as right about it as he does, only the U.S. laws demand equal protection, not limited.

It seems like I have repeated myself, so can we stop with the victimhood? I am not violating your rights, or his. But Cathy wants to violate mine. I think there are ways to say, let people marry without stirring up an argument about "my beliefs/free speech/religion are being attacked. I can't find a compelling reason to limit peoples' freedom. Because some people believe that is wrong and some believe it is right. More people are seeing the issue is causing too much anger, so settle this. You can go to your church and they are not required to marry same sex couples. Let them go to theirs (or NOT) and marry under the same laws as everyone else. People are getting hurt over this fight. I am one of them. There are much worse cases than mine, but I actually got hurt by Prop 8, put out to stop my own marriage, after the fact. There was no need for that to happen, it was not my choice to stir up another debate and another debate.

Can you understand that the beliefs are personal and the laws are public? Trying to make everyone follow your beliefs is not freedom. The laws are not based on religious beliefs, but freedom. If we limit laws, we limit freedom. You can still believe your beliefs, just can't make them the law when they conflict with equality. You know, liberty and justice for ALL.

Is it possible to understand that the beliefs are not consistent with our country's system. We already learned about limiting and separating rights, there must be a compelling reason to keep someone from equality. Like they stole some money and shot people, went to court and found guilty. No freedom, but they CAN STILL marry in prison.

The church Cathy belongs to believes one way, the church within the same category "Christian" believes another way. So trying to make "tradition" (especially citing Bible) law cannot be liberty and equal protection of the laws. He can still believe what he wants and that church can choose not to marry same sex couples. As I see it, that is fair. They should be aware that there are many churches and synagogues, etc. that will accept and marry LGBTQ people.

Now, I think we have summarized this and I am through being tested and challenged, OK?

It's the victimhood that is kind of pathetic, because they want their beliefs to be law. This keeps some real people, tax paying, hard working, law abiding, real families from enjoying the benefit and freedom to marry.

I believe that many are following the leader, act like a victim to get people to rescue. I've seen this before. Get people to defend you because we are the majority, we believe in the Bible. Well, so do they: http://www.gaychurch.org/

Sandy...,

Taking people's words and twisting them for their own purposes and victimhood-at all-costs have been a couple of many nefarious practices of the right on the internet for a long time, probably as long as there has been an internet. Guywhoozis' relentlessness is not as common, and was one of the hallmarks of the two internet kooks I mentioned earlier. That is why I mentioned them. By the way, both of them were/are probably to the right of the NRA. That ought to tell you something. I'm surprised that Guywhoozis hasn't managed to feel sorry for "gun owners" yet.

It's the victimhood that is kind of pathetic, because they want their beliefs to be law.

Waah! Poor me! My word isn't law! Oh, the humanity!

Pathetic. Puerile. Childish. Infantile. Cretinous. So many words to choose from. But you nailed it. It's tyranny when they aren't allowed to lock us down. It's the end of freedom if other people have equal rights. If they don't get their way, they kick and scream and cry, all because the lolly they have in their hands doesn't taste as sweet when all the other kids get to have lollies, too.

Proud Austinite here.

But when they speak outside the realm of commercial activity, they can hardly expect that the public won't respond to that speech. (And remember, money is speech ... the Supremes said so!)

It is the very fact that the man is the owner of such a large and public business that allowed his opinion to carry any weight.He chose to use his position as a way to make his view noticed!

I choose to eat elsewhere knowing it means little to him or his supporters.Unlike him I have no soap box on which to stand and my opinion will not be aired by both sides because I, like 99 percent of America, am not rich and powerful enough to matter to media.It takes people going public in such noteworthy ways as Laura to help balance the equation.

I also choose not to buy my chicken from a company that espouses these values (although it's easier now that I live in Ohio). Still, while it is certainly appropriate for people to protest, boycott, and complain in any way they choose about statements such as those made by Cathay, it is inappropriate for the government to take any action regarding anything he might say along those lines. If they demonstrate discrimination in hiring or serving customers as a result of his perspective, only then is it appropriate for the government to step in.

Imagine if "the government" of Germany or Austria had shut the little corporal up and exposed the demons that were pulling his strings before he gained so much power?

The government in the USA consists of we the people and even though we do enjoy free speech and would not want it to be lost e-every right carries with it the responsibility to respect opposing views and to insure your rights in no way interfere with---"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

Now that's just fo(w)l play , using their own words agin 'em.

"When will they ever learn?" Lyrics from the '60's- I'll settle for STFU and MYOB!

jean i'm with you... and day... you simply don't get it. as i said earlier, bigots never see themselves as bigots. they always have a reason (usually totally implausable to anyone but themself) and are quick to STFU or MYOB because they have no position themself. if any of us are opressed, then the group as a whole suffers. If we as individuals are free and prosperous then the group as a whole is free and prosperous. it applies to economics as well as sociology. all should be free and none should be opressed or descriminated against.

We are who we are. There have always been and will always be people who need to feel superior. Religion thrives on bigotry in the sense that each sect needs to feel their religion is the only "true" religion. Nations depend on "patriotism" to keep them viable and use any propaganda they can to make theirs a superior Government.

Though I can salute differences I must accept that in so doing I must allow for all differences to exist as long as there are those who support them. Bigots exist. Does that mean I must pick up the eggs they lay?

I once actually had someone seriously claim that the devil AKA serpent put lies into our mouths as if to leave the devil the blame for his own doing. I guess all anyone can do is live their lives as they see fit and resist being pushed or pulled by others into a position they are not in agreement with.

"I once actually had someone seriously claim that the devil AKA serpent put lies into our mouths..."

Lol! It's the old "the Devil made me do it!" excuse. Paging Flip Wilson!

How about we act like a country with free seech and support political expression?

There is nothing "hateful" about what is in the photo; it is actually pretty humerous. But for your theory to work -- we just vote with our dollars and leave it at that -- is that many people don't actually know what they are or are not voting for, and they might change their capitalist spending decisions if they were fully informaed (which is an assumption of a functioning free market).

What the publicity campaigns, boycotts, and people dressed in cow suits are all about is educating people about what their dollars are voting for. How can I follow your suggestion to stop doing business with those with whom I don't agree if I don't know about their use of a portion of my consumer dollar to fund issues abhorrent to me? THe part you find "hateful" is a necessary part of the approach you seem to approve of: speaking through consumer spending requires an informed consumer, which requires public education activities.

How about Chik-Fil-a keep their opinions to themselves? How about they (CFa) not spend millions of dollars to promote intolerance of people different than themselves. If they publicly promote their hatred, on a world wide view, 'we' have the right to make public, the fact that we do not support them and their hateful views. I am not gay, but I do not support those that publicly try to take away the civil rights of others. And by making my statement, I hope to spread the knowledge of what is going on, and to help others to make an informed decision. One person can make a difference.

When I respond to Chick-fil-A I am expressing my opinion, just as they expressed an opinion. My opinion is exactly as much bigotry and discrimination as Chick-fil-A's is -- no more, no less.

YOUR definition of Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. It is YOUR CHOICE to define it that way. In defining marriage to exclude others, you are CHOOSING to discriminate. (I prefer to use the actual punctuation mark, and not spell mine out)

Quote where it says marriage is one man and one woman in the bible...You can not...because it doesn't...and I'll save you time...It's not Leviticus...those lines refer to temple prostitution...of both sexes...THAT is the abomination...!So put up or shut up...your proof?

I am curious what part of that statement mentioned HATRED? I don't see it?

Even if it would say so in the Bible, our country is not governed by the Bible.

The definition of Marriage is *not* "one man, one woman." I urge you to read this, Chad-Aimee Bissonette:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/bradley-j-hartman/an-open-letter-to-chick-fil-a/10150979531623367

However, the definition of a MARRIAGE is 1 man and 1 woman, period.

Here's the sometimes-uncomfortable-but-actually-awesome part about living in a democracy: we debate ideas. We're debating what "marriage" means. You might not like how that debate turns out.

They gave money to Exodus International, which had a hand in the legislation of the Uganda 'Kill the Gays' bill. I don't understand why nobody is talking about this. That enough is a reason to boycott and picket their businesses.

Um, nobody is hating on Chick-Fil-A because they are Christian (except for maybe the Atheists, but they are a different matter), nor is anybody actively trying to prevent heterosexual marriage or block any Christian civil rights. You can be Christian and not be bigots. You can believe that marriage is only between a man and woman without trying to change the laws of the country. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay guy.

What you think is going on was completely invented by either you or Chick-Fil-A, and your group defense mechanisms are flaring up to attack a straw man, and not the actual issue which is that homosexuals feel that Chick-Fil-A wants to impede upon their civil rights and their supporters no longer wish to eat there.

I'm not going to call names. I just want an honest answer.

Marriage is defined as 1 man, 1 woman? As defined by what? Tradition, who's tradition? The world's tradition? Because that is always changing. It used to be a property arrangement. Polygamy used to be okay. Now, in some places, same sex marriage is legal. Traditional marriage, as defined by this country? Well, this country is based on freedom (religious freedom especially) and democracy (the ability to CHANGE tradition). Not everywhere in this country has that definition anymore. Biblical tradition.. sorry... The bible looks just as favorably on polygamy as it does to the 1 man, 1 woman definition of marriage.

Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives.

Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Samuel 1:1-2
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

1 Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

2 Chronicles 11:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

2 Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....

2 Chronicles 24:3
Jehoiada took for him two wives....

What real reason do you have to keep consenting adults, who love each other, from entering into bond? Which is legal, not religious, and gives them legal rights that you take for granted like visiting your spouse in the hospital or getting custody of the child you raised together?

Genesis 4:19

And Lamech took unto him two wives.

All religious supremacism is intrinsically and necessarily bigoted. Hope this helps.

The problem isn't with the sentiments expressed. The problem is that he's spending the money he is making from the business to support organizations that are fighting to suppress the rights of ten percent of our population. Some of us are not okay with it, and do not wish to provide more money for that purpose.

In essence Chick Fil A as a company used the donations to oppose gay marriage as paid advertising, they have every right to do so according to SCOTUS. I have every right to oppose their advertising hate and bigotry by speaking with my voice, my pen and my dollars. If executives and share holders of Chick Fil A want to use their religious beliefs as a business model, then they have to be prepared to deal with the unintended consequences of being @!$%#s.

People keep saying that action to prevent a minority group by voting against their issues is speech. Action to keep people believing "those people" are unworthy and should be put aside, even in some minds fair game to attack verbally and physically.

There is activity to make sure the beliefs of one type of religious group that conflicts with other types of religious groups get to continue to turn a blind eye to the discrimination that their religious doctrine incites.

For instance: I was holding a sign that read simply No on 8 before 2008 election on a busy corner in town. This was enough to incite a teenaged boy to throw a bottle of Pepsi, hitting me in the chest while yelling anti-gay slurs. (I'm not the only person attacked during that period)

Let me break it down: The ELECTED California legislature passed the law to allow same sex marriage.

There are legal marriages commonly presided over by a judge or captain at sea, which are civil marriages (like my parents'-married 58 years until death did them part). So traditional marriage is not necessarily a religious event, it is legal, then people choose to have it sanctified. To this day, people need to go get the documentation and return to have legal grounds as to inheritance, etc.

The petitioners said that is against our beliefs that traditional marriage (?) (befooorre St Augustine (?) declared one man, one woman, it was not that way) to have those legal marriages between spouses, gender not being a qualifier.

It could be aptly stated there is gender discrimination as well as equal protection of the laws, which marriage grants more rights and domestic partnership has less rights, with no federal level protections.

They (religiously opposed NOM) get enough people to sign a petition (against a minority) then take money from people like Chik fila owners from out of state to demonize same sex couples and try to nullify existing marriages and prevent people from having equal protections of laws, which need to pass constitutional muster, not the Bible. So they call it "defining marriage", when it is really DENYING marriage.

So, they put all that money from Latter Day Saints and Catholic Churches post flyers Yes on 8- yes I saw it there in the main entry. Now we have folks pretending to have their religious freedom attacked, but what about the religions that have same sex marriages, then?

So, the courts will say these things are not Constitutionally consistent and the anti same sex marriage folks claim they are the victims.

And the idea that marriage equality is a violation of religious freedom is so idiotic on it's face. If we had equality, clergy could marry same-sex couples but would not be compelled to do so. If there were in a place the absolute ban on equality that the religious right demands, then clergy who would be perfectly happy performing same-sex marriages would be prohibited from following their own consciences on the matter. With equality, clergy and churches and denominations can go whichever way they want. Without equality, only one way is allowed. Naturally, the former is tyranny and a violation of religious liberty in the eyes of the wingers.

Matthew 19:3 -9

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”^a

Chad, you have an establishment clause problem (1st Amendment).

We do not force people to observe religions. You can't have a law with a purpose of forcing someone to observe a religious tenet. For example, we can't make keeping kosher a health code. Laws have to have a non-religious basis because they apply to everyone equally, even people who don't accept the religion.

You like the 1st Amendment don't you? I thought everyone liked the 1st Amendment.

The challenge remains: Tell us where in the Bible it says marriage is between a man and a woman. This doesn't do it. Not that it matters because of reasons stated by others and me about our not being a "Biblical" country, but I'm still curious.

What does that have to do with the civil laws of our secularly governed country? You are entitled to believe anything you want. You are NOT entitled to enforce those beliefs on others.

The government is permitted to restrict behavior where it poses a threat to public safety or the general welfare of society. Same sex marriage does neither. Marriage is a government sanctioned contract that involves many legal benefits to the parties. You don't have a right to deny them those benefits because of your religious beliefs. If you don't "believe in" same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your same sex. THAT is your right. Not telling others how to live based on your religion.

so the best evidence you have about 1 man 1 women marriage is when Jesus was asked about divorce? what did Jesus say about MARRIAGE when asked about MARRIAGE?

Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was most likely a product of his time & place, which is not our time & place and which has no legitimate claim to universality.

very well said!

I have no issues with the legalities of homosexual couples - my concern is the redefining of what marriage is.

Militant Reactionary Christians are inordinately fond of weasel words (and many other transgressions).

Marriage has been redefined ever since mankind developed the concept as a way to exploit women.

Chad, Read in Genesis where Lamech (?), Cain's great, great, great grandson had 2 wives. Also the Book of Ruth describes a situation where the males all died and Ruth and Naomi found a way to pass on the lineage with Boaz, leading to David and Jesus.

Also read the eunuch (anomalous/exceptions to traditional) part in the Matt: 19: 11,12 about marriage. Refer to "born eunuchs", "man made eunuchs" and "self made eunuchs". He says this is for those who will receive it, not all.

For Chad quoting Bible verses about marriage, not trying to preach here. We have to admit there were other marriages than one man one woman and also in Genesis, there is clear intent that God did not want a person to be alone. There are exceptions to the law, as seen in Ruth. Otherwise, no David and no Jesus.

You are a dumb @#$%^.

Our 1st Amendment rights (yours and mine) only keep the Gov. from restricting free speech. Not people around you.

I seem to remember boycotts of companies that supported gay rights. Did you call the Christians who were boycotting those companies "stupid"? No? What is different except, the shoe is on the other foot? So, only when it's your foot do you complain.

The entire point and the reason that people are pissed off isn't that Cathy is a dumbass bigot, it's that he uses money that he makes from owning CfA to support groups that spew idiotic hate speech.

No one gives a good goddamn about your quest to "bring light to the dark", they care about shouting down groups that cater to intolerance and want to deny people civil liberties.

You don't want gay people to get married? Too bad. This country isn't based on your backwards bronze age bullcrap, it's based on enlightenment ideals. Your bigoted church full of closet-cases won't be forced to confront their own sexual dysfunction, because no one can force them to perform same sex marriages.

Hiding your stupid bigoted ideas in a little candy shell of God-Bless-You false piety doesn't change the fact that your views are inherently bigoted.

Militant Reactionary Christians are also inordinately fond of their own hypocrisy and self-righteous sanctimony.

Have you always been ignorant...given the hatred that homosexuals have to face in this world, who in their right mind would choose homosexuality. In the USA, Uganda and other places in the world, being gay is automatically having one's life at risk. Anyone who calls homosexuality a choice is as dumb as any human being that has ever walked the earth.

Fred...,

Pretending that it is a "choice" allows them to smear non-heterosexuals as especially "perverted" because they "choose" to practice a sexual orientation that arouses such animosity.

Chad, please read my reply at 14.4 and another poster 11.10 quoted Biblical refuting marriage has always been one man and one woman.

This is me speaking the language in order to be heard.

I have no problem with CfA's owners having their own bigoted belief system. They aren't any different than any other bigot. However, if they are going to spend large sums of money on trying to remove civil rights from their customers, they should do it quietly, under their name, not their business.

The only reason they put it in the CfA name, was because they can use it as a donation or expense. If they donate under a private name, they don't get the office books involved. So it was a money reason that they chose to donate with the company name.

They don't believe in marriage equality, fine. I don't believe in all the leviticus laws, that have been translated a thousand times, from one language to another. Ever played the game where you whisper a story to the guy next to you, and he whispers it to his neighbor, on and on through about 8 or 10 people and by the time the last guy tells the story aloud, the entire story is changed, one wouldn't even recognize the story.

I have no problem with CfA's owners having their own bigoted belief system.

Although it is a problem that such people as those believe as well that it is an infringement of their liberties when people raise objections, as if they are being silenced simply because other people are exercising their own liberties.

Ever played the game where you whisper

That's actually a lousy analogy. The purpose of the game of telephone (aka Chinese whispers) is to produce a garbled message. There'd be no point to playing if it didn't come out nonsense. The scribes of antiquity and the Middle Ages weren't playing games. They were doing what for their eras were highly skilled, highly technical jobs. A lot of time and resources went into copying out books and other texts, and nobody in any century pays through the nose for @!$%#ty work.

That doesn't mean mistakes were never made, but that wasn't the intention, and mistakes can be corrected. That's what the discipline of textual criticism is all about.

Jennym: my brother will be glad to know I'm gay and won't be taking his wife if he dies. He's glad to know me as I am, and so is his wife, and I hope he out-lives me, but I'm not sure if he doesn't stop smoking. In any event, I'm not taking his wife. Nice collection of 3000 year old fables we no longer live by, thanks for posting them. I wonder why that chicken guy doesn't get it.

John...you are too funny! I think that if someone is going to quote what the bible says about marriage and insist that everyone follow those teachings then maybe, just maybe, they should actually follow it as well. No one seems to actually do that though...do they?

If your brother dies, you're not only supposed to take his wife into your household, you are commanded to conceive sons with her. Onan was killed for disobeying this rule-- not, as some would have it, for masturbation (Genesis 38: 3-10).

As much as I love my sisters-in-law, if my brothers die before I do, I'm not marrying their widows. Sorry, ladies. My own wife wouldn't like it.

John, instead of marrying her, you could just set her up in a really nice apartment next to the Y, so she can go swimming every day. lol.

People in this country are allowed to believe what they wish to believe. But just as we have a separation of Church and State, we should also (if we're smart) have a separation of Church and business. I have a friend that is a good Christian family man (yes, me! I actually know right wing Conservative people) and in his business, I once asked him why he didn't use that fish symbol in his ads, etc. letting people know he is a Christian businessman. His answer? "Anybody can put a symbol on their ads and their business trucks. That doesn't mean they are honest. I show that I am an honest businessman by my referrals and my reputation."

Just couldn't quite finish the video, but the laws are such where the government IS involved with marriage and has been for many years. I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. So, just curious as to realistically how to go about putting your idea to take government out of the picture would be accomplished. And in the meantime, what are those of us going to do legally?

It has been 4 years since I was married, yet it isn't federally recognized and it JUST went to Supreme Court. So, we wait and wait, but there are those that die while waiting for everyone else to make it legal.

Arguments could go on indefinitely, but there are real people involved with daily life being denied the same rights to marry a consenting person of age they love or whatever their purpose may be.

There are arguments over inheritance rights, which I believe was the legal aspect and probably the reason for calling divorce and remarriage a "problem" for some. I have seen (in my family) remarriage after widowed men and their children from the first marriage lose their possessions, arguably because of the second marriage.

These contracts require being up to date, legally updated when there are people unwilling to prepare paperwork to leave possessions to the spouse, when arguments occur after a death, which may be sudden.