National Day of Support for...

[patric]

...Chick-fil-A.

After former governor of Arkansas and current Fox News host Mike Huckabee had enough of what he called the "vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry", he called for a national day of support for the fast-food chain.

As long as this is still America, the chain's owner has the right to express his beliefs -- a right we should all be defending.
But ---

When he stated his views were that of his company, did that blur the line?



Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:

1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?

2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?

3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?

4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?

5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?

There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?

Links to the above:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html

[Teatownclown]

Intolerance is an acceptable American norm ever since the TeaBaggers took over the GOP.



CHAZ scores! watch these amusing Conan videos! http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/01/621201/conan-obrien-introduces-chaz-the-intolerant-chick-fil-a-chicken/


I like this term ... "religious bullying" http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/31/615971/the-chick-fil-a-controversy-is-about-religious-bullying-not-chicken-sandwiches/

If Mittens were by some fluke to get elected his morons would definitely be bullying the agnosticators and atheists.

[RecycleMichael]

I remember when the Dixie Chicks made a political statement and radio DJs burned their records and refused to play their music. It seems similar today with Chick Fil A.

Maybe it is just the word "Chick" that makes things difficult.

[Teatownclown]

I remember when the Dixie Chicks made a political statement and radio DJs burned their records and refused to play their music. It seems similar today with Chick Fil A.

Maybe it is just the word "Chick" that makes things difficult.

No. Big diff.

I'm not amazed at the correlation between stupidity and fat. Talk about bad eating habits. Come on chick fillet and be honest with your customers about the poisons you push.

[Conan71]

Intolerance is an acceptable American norm ever since the TeaBaggers took over the GOP.


I like this term ... "religious bullying"

It fits your attack on the Mormons.  of course you do.

“Hate” “Intollerant” “Racist” and “Bigoted” have been over-used by the leftists in trying to intimidate people who don’t share their beliefs.

If you don’t approve of a liberal position, you are “intolerant”.

If you don’t agree with Obamacare, or won’t vote for his reelection it’s really because you are “racist”.  If you are conservative but openly consort with black people it’s only out of a sense of deep-seated racist guilt.

If you don’t approve of gay marriage, you are a “bigot”.

A lot of the descriptions I hear of Christian, white, hetero, conservatives sounds pretty damn bigoted, intolerant, and racist to me.

[RecycleMichael]

In 2005, Mike Huckabee wrote a book on diet and how to lose weight. In 2012, he held a press conference and encouraged Americans to eat at a fast food restaurant. Welcome to the dark side, Mike.

[Townsend]

“Hate” “Intollerant” “Racist” and “Bigoted” have been over-used by the leftists in trying to intimidate people who don’t share their beliefs.

If you don’t approve of a liberal position, you are “intolerant”.

If you don’t agree with Obamacare, or won’t vote for his reelection it’s really because you are “racist”.  If you are conservative but openly consort with black people it’s only out of a sense of deep-seated racist guilt.

If you don’t approve of gay marriage, you are a “bigot”.

A lot of the descriptions I hear of Christian, white, hetero, conservatives sounds pretty damn bigoted, intolerant, and racist to me.

If you don't follow a specific style of Christianity you burn in Hell for all eternity.  I think that takes the blue ribbon over anything else.

[Hoss]

If you don't follow a specific style of Christianity you burn in Hell for all eternity.  I think that takes the blue ribbon over anything else.

It's absolutely hypocritical.  Unless you follow that specific style of Christianity.

[Teatownclown]

Geez Louise Conan, I guess you back the biblical definition of marriage. Wait a minute. You've divorced! Hypocrite.

[RecycleMichael]

Really TeaTownClown?

Why do you get all personal and then you hide behind a fake name?

[Conan71]

Geez Louise Conan, I guess you back the biblical definition of marriage. Wait a minute. You've divorced! Hypocrite.

Divorced twice at that!  I guess that would make me a double adulterer then, eh?  "Everybody must get stoned!"

I’m perfectly cool with the government recognizing gay marriage.  I hope some day people will come to respect marriage by the commitment of two people rather than being consumed with what their gender is.

Just because that doesn’t jibe with someone else’s sense of tradition or religion, it doesn’t make them intolerant or bigoted.  Personally, I think some Christians are fearful that if the gov’t recognizes same sex marriage it will eventually require the church to sanction it.  Nevermind there is this separation of church and state thingy that’s a foundation of our Constitution which will prevent that from happening.

Of course, it’s probably never crossed most people's minds that marriage was a societal concept which predates The Bible and Christianity does not have a monopoly on the term “marriage".

[Teatownclown]

Really TeaTownClown?

Why do you get all personal and then you hide behind a fake name?

Uh, ok recyclemichael. And I thought it was Mr. America. Silly me.

Conan, you don't have 10 grandmothers....

[Townsend]

I hope some day people will come to respect marriage by the commitment of two people rather than being consumed with what their gender is.

Out of curiosity, do you think it needs to be between just two people?  (I'm not throwing animals in here, just consenting adult humans)  If so, from a socially acceptable view or due to insurance/taxation etc.?

[Conan71]

Out of curiosity, do you think it needs to be between just two people?  (I'm not throwing animals in here, just consenting adult humans)  If so, from a socially acceptable view or due to insurance/taxation etc.?

I’ve never really considered that to be honest and it’s a good question.  Polygamy has been “socially acceptable” for thousands of years in many societies.  I could see where it could become ripe for abuse if it were allowed in the United States.

There again, people have said gays just want to game the benefits system with gay marriage as if hetero couples haven’t considered the financial and survivorship benefits of marriage.  Mrs. C and I certainly didn’t “have” to get married at our age.  We really are THAT committed to each other, but I’d be lying if we didn’t discuss the legal benefits of marriage before we decided to do it, certainly not the only reason we did tie the knot but it was a consideration at least.

[Teatownclown]

I’ve never really considered that to be honest and it’s a good question.  Polygamy has been “socially acceptable” for thousands of years in many societies.  I could see where it could become ripe for abuse if it were allowed in the United States.

There again, people have said gays just want to game the benefits system with gay marriage as if hetero couples haven’t considered the financial and survivorship benefits of marriage.  Mrs. C and I certainly didn’t “have” to get married at our age.  We really are THAT committed to each other, but I’d be lying if we didn’t discuss the legal benefits of marriage before we decided to do it, certainly not the only reason we did tie the knot but it was a consideration at least.

Interesting. Without getting personal (salutations to Mista America), you mean just your word was not enough to be committed? Interesting concept. Shall we discuss contractual arrangements....