
The Chick-fil-A fallout has taken a decidedly different turn and some are asking whether this is a civil rights, First Amendment rights issue or both.
The firestorm was ignited when the fast food chain's president and CEO Dan Cathy reportedly said that he believed in traditional marriage as stipulated in the Bible, which is another way of saying he is against same-sex marriage. Cathy is a very conservative, religious man, so much so that Chick-fil-A closes on Sundays, the day set aside as the Sabbath by many Christians.
The criticism was fast and furious, and many have called for the boycott of the chain. Gay rights groups say consumers should never bite into another Chick-fil-A sandwich again; "Sesame Street" has cut all ties, with the Jim Henson Company pulling their muppet toys from the kids meals; several towns are warning the chain to take their "intolerance" and skip their neck of the woods.
James Kenny, a Philadelphia city councilman, is the latest public official to throw more than his two cents into the fray, saying the chicken outlet should take its bigotry elsewhere and that they are not welcomed in his city.
The controversy has taken on a partisan political fight, as things seems to go in the U.S. these days. While most of the flack for the chicken franchise comes from the left, support comes from the right with conservatives like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee openly throwing his support behind the 1,600 restaurants. Turning the tables on critics, who are calling Cathy a bigot, Huckabee interestingly is also calling these critics bigots.
He took to Facebook this week calling for a "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day," writing that the criticism of the food chain was "vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry." CNN reported on Friday that over 250,000 people have agreed to support the chicken outlet on that day.
Amid all the partisan, pandering noise, some are asking a few sobering questions. Is Cathy's statement free speech, thus protected under the First Amendment or is being against gay marriage a civil rights issue? Futhermore, are those mayors barring the chicken chain from opening restaurants in their town violating Chick-Fil-A's proprietary rights, which are covered under the Civil Rights Act?
Gay marriage has not been legalized on the federal level, only by six States: New York, Vermont, Massachusets, Iowa, New Hampshire and Connecticut. Washington D.C. and two Native American tribes--Oregon Coquille and Washington State's Suquamish -- also recognize same-sex marriages as legal.
President Obama only recently spoke out in support of equal marriage rights for all, when he was "publicly prodded" by Vice President Biden. Many states still vehemently oppose same-sex marriage, citing traditional, biblical unions are the only morally right ones.
Blacks were once legally discriminated against on a national level and institutionalized racism was dealt with only 48 years ago with the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Businesses, schools and neighborhoods were legally forced to integrate, to hire, rent and sell properties to every American and were barred from discriminating based on race, religion, sex, diabilities, ethnicity or creed.
Gay and lesbian advocacy groups say their right to marry is the same--a civil rights issue. Do you agree? Let's keep in mind that marriage is first and foremost a legal act. Religion comes second. One cannot legally marry in a church or religious ceremony without a marriage license.
Incidentally, some critics of the Chick-fil-A president's anti-gay marriage statement say he is a hypocrite, for his restaurants serve bacon, though pork is prohibited in the same Bible he is using to defend his anti-gay sentiments.
What do you think? Let's have a civil conversation, no pun intended.
If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.
Or add related content to this report
News Stories | Blogs | Images | Videos | Comments
Both; Cathy is entitled to say an believe as he wishes as long as he doesn't deny service. The mayors are violating Chick-Fil-A's rights to free commerce because of political differences. Clear violation.
Do I support Chick-Fil-A? Absolutely not.
If homophobes want to have an appreciation day for discrimination, that's their right. But to claim that it is Bible-based is, in my opinion, not at all justifiable. As I said in another comment, usury is condemned in the Bible far more often than homosexuality, so where's all the outrage at banks charging high interest rates?
I think Cathy is suffering from "confirmation bias" when it comes to his interpretation of the Bible. Which came first, his disdain for gays or his use of the Bible to justify his intolerance? Christians and other people of faith can pray that the scales will fall from Cathy's eyes, but under the U.S. law, he certainly has a right to express his opinions about gays or anything else so long as he doesn't actively discriminate against them when it comes to service.
The politicians who are trying to deny Chick-fil-A permits based on Cathy's political views are out of line, no doubt about it. I like their spunk, but they should redirect it.
Yeppers...
Unfortunately for both sides in this matter, there is no "compromise". Just like one can't be "a little pregnant", you either believe that marriage has been defined for 3,000 years as one man/woman or not. It is also a sacrament of many religions. To redefine it in any manner means we go fully from defintion "A" to definition "Z", there is no "M" or "N" position one can take.
Except for extreme bigots we all encounter, I have met nearly no one who objects to "civil unions" replete with contracts, agreements, etc for same-sex unions. But to call that "marriage" is like calling a "cow" a "horse". Just doing so doesn't make it one.
Marriage is defined in hundreds of ways, throughout myriad cultures, societies, and religions; in many of them, they involve one man and numerous women. Nobody should be limited to one groups interpretation.
" . . but not in the Western Culture that is predominant in the society we live in. Cannibalism is OK in some parts of the world - should we adopt it here also if a few people demand it? Or would we be "anti-cannibalists" to say no? Insisting on consistency is necessary for a functional group to remain functional, be it a family, a nation or a culture."
I'd have to disagree... yes we live in a Western culture, but in a society that is a melting pot of many, many different beliefs and practices, all of whom must be addressed; marriage is far too personal to be defined with a broad brush.
Even within our Western culture, there is a very diverse idea of what marriage entails, in terms of responsibilities, and roles, mostly from a Christian perspective. A Muslim marriage is quite different, as are many Pagan unions, all with their own traditional roles and values. If someone wants to get married naked at the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship, who are any of us to tell them no?
The real beauty of replacing a marriage license with a domestic contract for ALL unions, would create a secular, lawful component that would then allow the parties involved to be married or not, in any manner the feel comfortable with.
. . . but not in the Western Culture that is predominant in the society we live in. Cannibalism is OK in some parts of the world - should we adopt it here also if a few people demand it? Or would we be "anti-cannibalists" to say no? Insisting on consistency is necessary for a functional group to remain functional, be it a family, a nation or a culture.
Without standards and without definitions (meaning, that words actually mean things and not the whim of the day), a functioning society starts to fall apart. Especially when defining a core component of society - the family.
If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
Back during the Civil Rights Movement there was a saying: "I don't care if you don't like me; but you gotta take your foot off my neck." I think that's the case here, although I'm not sure making gay marriage a "civil right" is the right thing to do. How about letting folks do what they want to do as long as they don't hurt anybody?
Rated up/shared. Excellent report, as per usual.
So you're saying gay people shouldn't have all the rights and privileges of anybody else? The right to marry and designate that spouse as a caregiver, or as a beneficiary?
Gay marriage is definitely a civil right's issue. It's just not a race issue...
Chic-fil-a doesn't discriminate; it just has an owner with an opinion, same as you or me... last time I heard, personal opinions weren't involved in civil rights as long as the individual's actions aren't discriminatory.
Jeremiah Wright, on the other hand, acts consistently with his beliefs, and preaches accordingly, and sells racist DVDs... for me, that's far worse.
If you want a serious, in-depth discussion of the issues, take a look at Rob Gagnon's article in response to a critic (http://robgagnon.net/homosexKnustCombinedResp.htm). Here's what Rob says about one New Testament text: "In Romans 1:18-32, which includes Paul’s searing indictment of homosexual practice (1:24-27), Paul depicts God’s wrath as God stepping away from moral intervention, thereby allowing people to gratify themselves in impure, degrading, and indecent behavior. As a consequence, offenders heap up their sins and bring upon themselves cataclysmic judgment at the End. By contrast, Paul presents God’s grace in Romans 6:14-23 as God through Christ actively stepping back into the lives of believers in order to destroy the rule of sin and put a stop to impure and shameful practices."
People are being deceived so they can deceive others.
God strongly punishes nations that embrace what He warned against. WE see our nation falling. This is not a civil rights issue; it is a moral issue and a national security issue. Homosexuals can still have their great friend without the sex, God sees that as beautiful. They can enjoy a wife that can give them a mutual child. They lose nothing by having a wife and a friend and a child; it is all gain with honor.
Really? Ever hear about a certain species of moths in England? They used to be light in color to match the color of the bark on trees so that birds couldn't hunt them as easily. When the industrial revolution was spawned, the burning of coal in large amounts deposited soot on the trees gradually turning them black. What color do you suppose the moths gradually turned?
Black, because of natural selection; the driving force behind evolution. The moths that remained light colored were eaten and the ones that got darker were better camouflaged so they were able to survive and pass their genes for dark color down to the next generation.
Sounds like evidence of evolution to me.
"My point was that your example has been long refuted as proof of macro evolution (which was your original point), even evolustionsts agree."
The fact is that there is no scientific consensus that refutes that micro-evolution is not a component of macro-evolution. It is still in contention. Evolutionists DON'T agree. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
Comments like "...typical liberal argument style.", "you got it wrong again." and "I don't wish to get into a debate on evoluion with someone that has drunk the kool-aid without questioning anything." aren't exactly conducive to a good argument either. Pot, meet kettle. Also, YOU didn't give any hard facts to refute what I said.
Check the link and THEN tell me who's drinking the kool aid, because you said "... even evolustionsts agree." without questioning your own beliefs.
Are you one of those quacks that believe the world is only 6000 years old and that god planted the dinosaur bones?
I could hold any belief I want and it doesn't invalidate the point I made, only your being able to factually refute it would make me wrong. And you didn't accomplish that with your answer above
My point was that your example has been long refuted as proof of macro evolution (which was your original point), even evolustionsts agree. Changes within species is how we get different breeds of dogs, or different strains of beans. We don't get birds from lizards, etc. That was my point.
I don't wish to get into a debate on evoluion with someone that has drunk the kool-aid without questioning anything. And to answer your question- I attended public schools all my life. And you don't know my position on evolution - you just assumed it.
Folks on the other side will say that conservatives just proof-text (i.e., take texts out of context) and have no interpretative subtlety (e.g., they try to suggest that we can't read the OT consistently on this and the OT Law, that is, the law having to do with non-moral and cultic matters), but it's a crock. For the best scholarship on this, read Robert Gagnon, Homosexuality and the New Testament. Rob is the leading Protestant scholar on this subject. He teaches at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and he's read by people like the Archbishop of Canterbury. He's also a very fine guy, not a "hater," as some of his enemies want to believe.
The mild translation of what he said to me, goes along the lines of - "If poop chutes were for copulation, they'd be self-lubricating!"
I don't have a problem with gays and lesbians entering into a civil agreement that gives them the same civil rights as married couples.
I do have a problem with gay coupling being called "marriage".
This description is the most offensive description I have ever had put to my face; and calling this coupling "marriage" is a total affront to the many billions of happily married men and women, who are carrying out acts of copulation precisely as Nature intended, with the God-given consequence of producing offspring.
I am thoroughly sick of gays and lesbians being constantly in my face, with their raucous screeching for "rights" and "entitlements". They are only entitled to live according to the laws of Nature.
All behaviour outside the laws of Nature, is an abomination with no benefit to the improvement, or reproductivity, of homo sapiens.
Which book, other than that of opinion, are you reading from? You have a right to disagree; you have no right to not be offended. Basic Constitution.
I somehow doubt that they're "constantly in" your face.
Maybe we should just redefine legal couples. Instead of a marriage license, they sign a domestic contract,available to any two people, and bound by the terms of that contract. That would establish legal rights to endcare, equal treatment under all laws, and a default inheritance path, just like a "marriage".
Once that was done, the couple involved could then go and get "married" if they wish, by anyone empowered to to so. The marriage would be symbolic, the contract would be the law.
It doesn't have to be one way or the other.
Although I don't agree with all of his extreme thoughts on libertarianism, I agree with his thinking that only people who served their country in the military are citizens who could vote or run for office. All others would be considered civilians. Of course provision would have to be made for those with disabilities to serve in some other capacities in order to afford them the same opportunity to become full citizens. I believe that this would make politicians strive to resolve disputes through negotiation rather than go to war. If Romney's kids were in the army he may not be quite so hawkish and eager to go to war because he has some "skin" in the game..