Three Reasons I Ate at Chick-Fil-A Yesterday.

In descending order of importance.

These guys really made out well yesterday. Mooooo.

1) Freedom of conscience, expression. The reason Boston, Chicago, and possibly Philly have threatened to ban Chik-Fil-A is because the owner had the audacity to express a belief that they find unfashionable. Seems Chicago values, Boston values, and Philly values don’t include tolerance or freedom of expression.*

2) I support traditional marriage. If a guy is getting persecuted for supporting a belief that is written into the very fabric of our beings as men and women, a belief that has been held since the dawn of human relations by every civilized culture, I’ll support him. Note, please that “I support traditional marriage” and “I hate gays” are very different statements. Don’t confuse them if you wish to engage in civil or intelligent discourse.

3) It’s tasty chicken. Since I was a kid and the Chick-Fil-A in the mall would pass out free samples of their chicken I’ve always liked their sammiches. So it was an easy decision to make. 35-minute drive, then a 30-minute wait in the drive-through line, with a totally packed dining room, but totally worth it. (And, for the record, the manager who was manning the drive-through window reported that yes, they were running out of some items when we went through at 8:30 p.m., in spite of getting a truck in with supplies at 2 p.m.)

*Note that number one did not mention what the unfashionable belief is? That’s because it doesn’t actually matter. In our system, if you disagree with the business model of a company you can vote with your dollars—don’t go there! But this push to use the power of government to punish people who merely express what some believe to be an unfasionable opinion is thoroughly unAmerican and sets a very dangerous precedent.

4,272 views

Categories:Uncategorized

80 thoughts on “Three Reasons I Ate at Chick-Fil-A Yesterday.

  1. Bruce says:

    I think we need to bring back anti-sodomy laws and lock up offenders. Homosexuals, particularly homosexual men, sexually abuse children and young adults at far higher rates per capita than heterosexual men. Its time for better therapy for homosexuals and better protection for our boys and young men.

    1. Bruce says:

      As usual, I appreciate all of the “likes” my posts receive.

    2. Amused says:

      That stance is going to thin the herd of priests. I’m not sure the church would be so willing to support it.

      1. Bruce says:

        Actually, what is “amusing” (see what I did there? I know! Awesome!) is the fact that the Church does not want homosexual priests and is working on the problem. FTW :)

    3. chrysd says:

      Actually I can’t agree with locking them all up. They need our love and support, not advocating acceptance of the sin here. I would be in favor of placing pedophiles in their own towns, walled off from children which tempts them, and where they can get counseling over throwing them in prisons.

    4. Mara says:

      Pedifiles are not homosexuals. They are sexually defiant because of childhood experiences that caused them to not recognize that they ever became adults. Please don’t blame the sexual abuse (and subsequent coverup) by Priests on homosexuals. Homosexuals abuse children to a significantly lower degree than heterosexuals.

      1. Tom Crowe says:

        Mara— but the priests who abused were, in the great, great majority, homosexual. And they didn’t sexually pursue grown men, they pursued boys. No one is saying all people with homosexual tendencies are pedophiles, but don’t act like that coincidence does not exist.

      2. Bruce says:

        Over 80% of priestly offenders were homosexual men preying upon adolescent and teenaged boys. This is ephebophilia by definition, not pedophilia, and it is dependent upon sexual orientation.

  2. Kathryn Hanley says:

    I agree that supporting traditional marriage (and merely calling it that) and hating gays are extremely different things. But why must supporting traditional marriage be done by opposing gay marriage? I do not understand people opposing commitment. I can understand and appreciate, especially from a parenting viewpoint, general concern over divorce and over relationships ending in general. But you support traditional marriage simply by being in one and by supporting family-friendly policies at work and through your purchases. It is not necessary to oppose what is a relative cultural rarity and a pacifistic one at that.

    1. chrysd says:

      Same sex marriage has to be opposed because where it or civil unions become legalized, these things have occurred: Pastor in Europe charged with hate speech for a sermon against homosexual acts, photographer must photograph a commitment ceremony in New Mexico (and it SSM isn’t even legal there), Catholic Charities being taken away from the Church and handed over to pro-gay secularists who claim gays can’t adopt children otherwise (even though there were secular adoption agencies acommadating them beforehand), Knights of Columbus told they can believe what they wish, but when they didn’t rent their council building to same sex couple they still had to pay fines, schools from PK-12 are made to follow curriculums that will tell your children that they must BELIEVE it is okay and anyone who disagrees is a bigot- in another generation, will they be told to report on their parents and clergy? These kinds of things are reported in Catholic and conservative Christian periodicals pretty regularly. Oh, I forgot another example- a church owned adjoining property that was rented out to those outside their faith, so a court ruled they had to close it or rent to same sex couples. So believe what you will, but shut up and do as we say attitude ( with more colorful choices of words) is being responded to.

  3. Bertha says:

    All those who supported Chic-fil-A yesterday NEED to get out and VOTE in November.

  4. joanne says:

    Here’s an article that’s kicking around out there, consoling many who were saddened by the lines at Chick-fil-a (because they feel they are hated by THAT MANY BIGOTS! Ouch. There are no words to change this perception, i find. Much prayer needed.)
    http://www.joshuakennon.com/chick-fil-a-anti-gay/
    I couldn’t read the whole thing–too much frustration and indigestion resulted from what i did read. If you consider the many peaceful, prayerful, merciful groups who are suspected of terrorism and hatred for defending life and marriage, it’s hard to take seriously the “hate group” charge.

  5. Julie T. says:

    I have noted a trend among the “com box crowd”, not only here at Catholic Vote, but across online media, that should give all of us pause. Since when is something “fact” because someone posts it as such in a comment box? For that matter, since when is something fact just because it is published as such? The standards for responsible journalism include having *verifiable sources* to back up one’s assertions in order for readers to verify those claims. Since the brouhaha over Chik-Fil-A began, we have been treated to homosexual-agenda activists and their supporters posting one allegation after another about Chik-Fil-A contributing money to hate (read, “traditional marriage) groups that want to outlaw sodomy and jail homosexuals and the charges picked up by others whose posts begin with, “I heard they want to jail…” without offering one scintilla of proof for it. I have to wonder, don’t people appreciate how dangerous this can be, believing and repeating *anything* that comes across their bandwidth without verification? The leadership of Nazi Germany understood the effectiveness of repeating a lie until it became the truth in the collective consciousness of their followers and, tragically, they used it to full effect. Perhaps too few people grew up with an old admonition: Believe nothing you read (without proof) and only half of what you see (it might not be what it seems). At the very least, take the advice offered by Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify. So, to homosexual activists and their sympathizers, produce your proof or be silent and find a better use for your time.

    1. Rod says:

      I would also add that another part of “the standards for responsible journalism” is that when such a rumor starts, the rumor is addressed not ignored. I’m happy to learn the accusations against CFA are false.

  6. Too says:

    Didn’t this website launch a boycott against Starbucks for supporting gay marriage just a few months ago? Doesn’t that contradict #1 on your list?

    1. Rod says:

      Too, are you serious when you ask this question? I didn’t see Tom mention one is not allowed to boycott. In fact, a boycott is just another way of expressing your beliefs. I don’t recall seeing CV endorsing picketing Starbucks or encouraging “Kiss-Ins” or attacks on the company. Starbucks has every right to endorse whatever they want as we have a right to support or not support their company. See the difference?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.