Front Page  »  

Chick-Fil-A battle reaches Cal Poly

August 1, 2012

In support of GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s proclamation that today is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, several church groups plan to bus parishioners to Cal Poly to support the restaurant’s anti-gay marriage stance by purchasing meals at Chick-fil-A.

The fast food restaurant chain’s president Dan Cathy said in The Baptist Press on July 16 that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Proponents of equal rights for the gay, lesbian and transgender community plan to arrive on the Cal Poly campus at 11:45 a.m. today to show their support for gay marriage. And on Friday, same sex couples are planning to return to Cal Poly’s Chick-fil-A for public displays of affection in what has been dubbed “National Same Sex Kiss Day.”

“For someone to be so anti-gay is disheartening,” said San Luis Obispo resident Sheryl Flores. “I wonder if Cal Poly will reconsider their relationship with Chick-fil-A in light of the University’s commitment to diversity and tolerance? From what I understand they don’t want gays in the restaurant. What would they do if openly gay people are in their restaurant. Will they ask us to leave?”


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


213 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states homosexuality is an abomination.


Exodus 21:7 selling one’s daughter into slavery is sanctioned.


Lev 15:19-24 no contact with a women during her period “uncleanliness”


Lev 25:44 slavery is legal provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.


etc.


Chick-Fil-A needs to stop being so selective in it’s readings.


1

Fact 1: Bible does not contradict itself


Fact 2 Joseph (Husband of Mary, father of Jesus) has two fathers – Jacob (Mat 1:16) and Haili (Luke 3:23)


Conclusion: BIBLE APPROVES HOMOSEXUALITY!


0

Let’s get Ted in on this !


HALLELUJAH !


0

Are you being serious? Joseph, not Jesus was the son of Heli…


Matthew 1:16 “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.”


Luke3:23 “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli”


0

Yes, as you say, Joseph had two fathers….Jacob and Haili. They were a gay couple.


0

In my day a CHICK-FIL-A was a prime POLY DOLLY. And we could spell too.


0

The correlation between bigotry and poor spelling is pretty revealing. If only we could fix the education system, we might be able to leave all this inequality in the past. Here’s hoping.


0

Just how far are you willing to take your convictions?


http://lolvirgin.com/wp-content/uploads/So-you-stopped-eating-Chick-fil-a-because.jpg


0

Oh, you’re a biggoted Christian on the internet?


Please re-post the same moronic OPEC/Chick-Fil-A Wonka meme that belies ignorance of what OPEC is and how oil trading works.


Christ, I’ve seen that thing like twenty times now, always posted by friends of mine who can barely string two facts together to form a proper argument.


0

So you are saying your “friends” are stupid? What kind of friends do you keep? I am curious their opinions of you. Nice name calling, thanks. Coming from an arrogant hypocite like yourself who has no repect of anothers opionion other than his own, I dont put much weight on it. Have a nice day :)


0

He’s saying he’s forgiving enough to be kind to small-minded bigots, even though they probably wouldn’t do him the same courtesy if they realized precisely what he believes.


0

This debacle is handing Chick-Fil-A a positive advertising advantage that they could never buy with any amount of money. I am going to Chick-Fil-A tomorrow to show my support to them.


0

You’re absolutely right.


The militant homosexual agenda pushed too hard on this one. The backlash is going to be profound and enduring.


0

You mean, something like this?


http://www.spd.org/images/blog/Screen%20shot%202010-03-17%20at%209.17.17%20PM.png


0

Because it’s not like any other minority has fought for their rights. Somehow, because of good-hearted people that care for the respect and dignity of others, they tend to succeed. Despite people like the ones on this comment board. Face it. Nobody will make you like a gay person if you find what they do so disgusting. Just like they can’t make a white supremacist like other minorities, or children like vegetables. But they (the government, your peers) can “make” you tolerate and allow for others’ civil rights, just as they “make” you not rape, murder, and steal from people. So unless you intend to spark a violent, anti gay crusade, give it time. You’ll be the minority.


1

“Downvote ALL the facts!”


0

First of all, the homosexual agenda is recognition, respect, tolerance, and equality. That is all. There is no plot to take anything from you, and there is no plan to remove your rights.


Secondly, you obviously don’t know what militant means if you think the current equality movement is militant and you sound like a fool for using the word.


1

“For someone to be so anti-gay is disheartening” — what a horridly ignorant and bigoted comment given the facts of this situation. People like Sheryl Flores need to realize at some point in their lives that all which they hate is not necessarily “anti-gay”, “anti-woman”, “anti-person of color” or “anti-anything else.”


The support for Chik-fil-A from a huge and diverse number is largely in response to the intolerance shown by people like Flores. The rights guaranteed to all US Citizens are not limited to specific groups. The sooner some learn that, the better for all.


I wonder if Flores also refuses to buy gasoline? OPEC producing countries do execute homosexualsbased on their sexuality. Not consuming gasoline requires a much larger sacrifice than not eating a chicken sandwich. Until she and others like her do, they’re really nothing more than hypocritical agitators.


0

I don’t even know where to start on this one. Let me just reiterate, Dan Cathy is anti-gay, and for someone to be so anti-gay is disheartening. I am not saying that all Christians hate homosexuals, this would not be true. But Dan Cathy does, and a number of his actions should and will be legally classified as hate crimes. It won’t stand, and nor will the small-minded backlash against America’s finally accepting and welcoming its gay citizens.


You know what the Crusades were right? Sure you want to associate yourself with that?


0

“Anti-gay”? What does that even mean? You interpret (and I quote) Mr. Cathy’s words:


“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit” and “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”


to be “anti-gay?” How so? Using your nonsensical logic, all that oppose Cathy are “anti-biblical”, “anti-family”, “anti-family led business” and “anti-commitment to marriage.” Ever consider how your sordid sword cuts both ways? Wait you say! Homosexuals have special license that others do not! My answer to that is simply “no they do not.”


Yes, I am very aware who the Crusaders were. Are you? One of their prime responsibilities was to ensure safe passage of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Lands. Another was to turn away marauding, anti-Christian forces. You have a problem with that or is that news to you? In many ways it’s tragic the Third Crusade failed. Had it not, the world would be a far safer place today.


0

You didn’t feel the need to quote his claims that supporting marriage equality was inviting the wrath of god on the country and his admittance that he sees homosexuality as twisted? That is most definitely anti-gay.


More pressingly, actions speak louder than words. The man uses his company to fund pray the gay away camps and political groups that work to ‘protect the traditional family’ which is fundamentalist-speak for “keep the gays from marrying.”


Your rights as a Christian are intact and no one is threatening them. We are not trying to take away your right to attend your services, to read whatever holy books you want, to marry in your church, or to generally live your life as you see fit. Those things are promised to you, and every other individual in the country. As it happens, most of the people in this country do not share your personal beliefs, even the ones with the same savior all find different truths in your book, and ALL of those beliefs must respected and treated equally. It is the belief of homosexuals (and many more of us citizens) that their orientation is natural and healthy and that their unions are every bit as legitimate as a heterosexual one. These beliefs must be respected, and since they in no way prevent you from believing as you see fit, there are no grounds for an opposition to it’s continued legality.


As for the Crusades, I am referring to when the Christian search militarized and killed thousands of innocents in a bid for their land under the guise of their holy books. Deplorable.


0

“Marriage equality?” Again, what exactly is that? Is that a euphemism for two people of the same sex attempting to get “married”? What you term “marriage equality” would be regarded by many as an attempt to pervert an ancient and sacred tradition or in some cases sacrament.


You suggest that Cathy “uses his company to fund” pro-family organizations. What’s the matter with that? It’s his values, his decision. You don’t like it, don’t patronize his business. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking the militant homosexual agenda has the authority to use political scumbags like Rahm Emanuel to keep his firm from legally expanding in the USA.


You suggest that “your rights as a Christian are intact and no one is threatening them” yet that’s a lie. Your desire is to pervert what in my world is an ancient and sacred tradition. A tradition that government took from faith and not the reverse. It’s not up to government to now re-define it in a manner that many find morally repugnant.


I would have no problem with the government getting out of the “marriage” business altogether. Individuals can be married (or not) in a non-governmental process and then go to the government for a union license of some kind. But for government to marry homosexuals? No.


History isn’t a smorgasbord. It’s not healthy to pick and choose what you will consume. I trust you learned something about the Crusaders today.


0

For most of human history and for most of the holy book you worship, the tradition of marriage was owning women as slaves. Also, your made up opinion that completely ignores every bad portion of the Crusades shows how completely you treat history as a “smorgasbord” while at the same time using that stupid phrase to criticize someone else.


Fine then, get rid of this term “marriage” used in our laws. Call them all civil unions and give gay couples the same rights under this term as straight couples. That is exactly the goal of marriage equality. A large portion of us fighting for marriage equality want nothing to do with your religion or its members (though to be fair there are plenty of them who are perfectly wonderful people.)


Since gay couples already get married in other countries and states in the United States, we’re obviously not going to bother changing the term marriage just to pander to your beliefs but even if we did, you’d piss and moan because other churches that do except gay people would still be destroying your “traditional marriage.” While we’re at it, why don’t all of you straight people trying to protect marriage stop getting divorces and ruining marriage?


0

Christians don’t worship a “holy book.” They worship God. To suggest otherwise is to lie or show abject ignorance. It’s also a lie/ignorant to suggest that “the tradition of marriage was owning women.” That’s simply not true. You honestly need to either stop lying or make efforts to educate yourself.


I wouldn’t mind if government out of the marriage business altogether because they certainly have no right to “marry” two homosexuals. For what it’s worth from a legal standpoint, homosexual couples can already exercise the same rights as married couples.


0

Please explain to me how I am wrong despite that the Old Testament is filled with religious men who are shown as shining examples of what your god wants while:

1: Buying women from their fathers

2: Taking multiple wives

3: Expecting all women to be completely subordinate to their husband or father

4: Stoning of women who are unfaithful

5: Forced marrying of women by their rapist


Not to mention the current notion of meeting your significant other, falling in love and getting married is most certainly NOT the tradition of marriage. Most of human history involved the arranged marriage between families while the two getting married had little or no say in the matter.


In your second paragraph, you claim that homosexual couples can exercise the same exact rights as married couples. You call me a liar or ignorant because I suggest you also worship your supposed “word of God” instead of just saying your god. While mine was a minor misphrasing (and Christians do believe that the Bible is the sacred word of god) your statement shows either a wilful intent to deceive or complete ignorance. http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html There are many differences between civil unions and marriages at the state and federal level (depending upon the state.)


0

You worship a character from a holy book. To suggest otherwise is to show a worrisome detachment from reality and either a history of indoctrination or willful ignorance.


I doubt you know much of anything about the traditions of pair bonding, but let it be said we have millions of years of history demonstrating that the human animal can comfortably exist in all kinds of varied and fluid groupings.


What you don’t understand is that the government is and must be blind to religion, orientation, and race when making these kinds of decisions. Fair and equal access is the only acceptable route. Especially given the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nobody cares how sacred you think your sacramental version of marriage is. Nobody cares what your holy book says about homosexuality. Because those things can define how you live your life, but it is illegal for the government to allow your religious beliefs to control the lives of those of us who feel differently.


You cant appeal to doctrine in a secular debate. It’s a waste of your breath.


0

Why do you lie? God the Father has ALWAYS existed. So has His Son. The oldest books of the OT are around 3,000 years old. Christians do not “worship a character from a holy book.” Who exactly taught you that?


Why I appreciate your lack of the gift of faith limits the grace and hope in your life, that does not mean that you should resort to being a hateful liar.


0

To Crusader:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?” Epicurus


All of which makes more sense than anything you have posted on this subject.


0

I can hear the Problem of Evil whooshing right over his head. Funny how firmly people hold on to a construct that is internally inconsistent.


0

Austin,

I understand that you are not gay but I have to say, drama queennnn. You just seem to over exaggerate everything. I don’t even agree with Dan Cathy but I believe in his right to say, believe and support his old fashioned conservative christian beliefs. In an earlier post you talk about Dan Cathy not supporting his beliefs with his money but as you write in the post they are HIS restaurants. It is a privately owned company so the money is his, he can donate to charities prior to taking his profit or he can just take the money, either way it’s he and his families money. Are you ok with the other $18 million dollars that he and the family donate to orphanges, scholarships, general outreach, etc?? I have to say, beyond this issue, the world would be better off if the owners of more mega companies donated at the level this group does rather than just buying mores homes and boats.


As for the conversion camps you describe, although rediculous, insensitive and a waste of time, not sure that it truely reaches to the level of HATE CRIME as you describe it, nor that Chick Fil A(a business) is ANTI GAY because its owner is against same sex marriage. Not sure how we get from a business owner donating to charities(of which lets say some dont support gay marriage) to he and his business are outright against any and all gays, flatly ANTI GAY.


I question whether your venom towards Chick Fil A is as much about your atheism and Dan Cathy’s strong religious beliefs than about gay marriage. To really suggest that Dan Cathy donating to charities should and will be classfied as HATE CRIMES is such dramatic rhetoric that it takes away from the obvious intellect in your arguments.


0

I’m sorry, but I do believe that holding human beings, often minors, often against their will, in camps that aim to convince them their natural state will destine them to eternal and ultimate suffering and then to attempt to brainwash them into behaving not in accordance with their own desire IS a hate crime. Yes, plenty of his donations go to fund positive outreach. Yes, he’s entitled to make those donations. That doesn’t excuse him from his discriminatory influence in the public sphere, wherein we are all entitled to equal right.


I can do little about my vitriolic rhetoric, I’m worked up. It makes me fume to see so many people calmly and boldly express the kind of bigoted hate speech that should, and eventually will, be wildly inappropriate to voice openly.


As for your reference to my atheism, you’ve got me suspecting we know eachother. If that’s the case I’d rather have this discussion openly. Also, if I read correctly, you’re accusing me of being more motivated by my perspective on the very religious than my desire to see equality for all citizens. I can do little to convince you otherwise, but in my defense I love In-N-Out and eat there as much as I can conveniently. Their blatant inclusion of their beliefs into the culture and operation of their restaurant has yielded good results: a good environment, damn good for fast food, and respect for their employees. Many of these things are true about Chick-Fil-A, I think the environment, service, and food are well above average among comparable fast food joints. They just also happen to actively inhibit progress toward equality and overstep their legal boundaries in dealing with their employees.


0

Well I have not been to one of these camps so I can not speak from experience, if as you say they hold kids down, strap them to chairs or hold them against there will than I would agree there is a crime, short of that though it is really just a bunch of zealots with a flawed agenda not a hate crime.


No, we do not knw each other, when I see someone that is pretty much half of a blog I use my friend google to see who this person might be and why they are so worked up, you happen to pop up. I only posed the question of your atheism driving such disdain, I take you at your word for what drives your emotion on this, no need to convince.


0

Nor have I been to one, but I have looked into the topic and I know people who have been. While to my knowledge, they do not actually physically restrain people, I do not think that this is necessary to hold a person against their will. As stated, minors, entirely dependent on their parents, are dropped off at these places with the threat of eternal damnation snapping at their tails. The forceful indoctrination that follows is psychological abuse at best and torture at worst. In either case a crime, and one motivated by intolerance of homosexuality: a hate crime, perpetrated on children by the very people they should love and trust the most.


Regardless of every other action occurring at Chick-Fil-A, the continued financial support of organizations that do this kind of work is more than enough reason for me to speak out against spending there. All the other little hindrances and intolerances, not to mention the Christian outcry about an imaginary attack on their rights, make it hard for me not to get dramatic. I don’t usually spend my day addressing every goddamn comment of an entire thread like this. But when I came here and say the blatant, ignorant bigotry being thrown around unanswered, I got involved. And more involved.


And now I realize I have stumble upon a small gathering of some of the most frustratingly small-minded, insular people I have ever had the displeasure of interacting with, and it’s done a lot to remind me of the things I don’t care for about this county. Thank you for your perspectives.


0

Very well said. I had not considered that austinmello is an atheist. That explains a great deal.


0

Atheist or not, I think Mello’s point is that Cathy’s words are farther-reaching than just his personal beliefs. It’s not about his faith, but rather his (and others) support of marginalizing and subjugating a minority of people that are different., based solely on that common difference. In this case, it’s their sexual orientation or gender identity (which is something you’re born with). Considering there is no government equivalent, non-marriage option for people that doesn’t “infringe” upon the sanctity of marriage for certain religions, denying same-sex marriages at this point in our history is effectively the same as denying interracial, interfaith, or international marriages. So, if you have a problem with gay marriage, support a marriage union equivalent that would allow the same rights (hospital visits, taxes, etc) that has NOTHING to do with religion or sex or anything. Then, marriage can be something left for the church, and the union left to the government. I think that would be a fair compromise. I guess though, gays in the religious community would be in a rut, but then again look at the Anglican Church.


0

I’m going to quickly point out two things you offer as fact when they are not. You don’t know if people are “born” homosexual or not. You’re also flat-out wrong when you suggest “there is no government equivalent, non-marriage option for people that doesn’t “infringe” upon the sanctity of marriage.”


0

While I doubt you read peer-reviewed journals and stay up on the subjects of biology and evolution, there is strong evidence of people being born gay. For example, the more males born to a woman, the much higher the odds are that the most recent male born will be gay. Also, homosexuality has been observed in almost every single species of animal that reproduces via sex. Since only a few animal species actively participate in sex for pleasure and not for mating, and even animals as low on brain power as worms are observed in homosexual sex, that largely rules out it being a “choice” of a conscious human being and not a predetermined factor of a person.


You go on and on about the sanctity of marriage, but there are hundreds of religions that participate in marriage, each with their own beliefs and rules not to mention that all of the Christians arguing over this all differ in their beliefs. Hell, I’ll be dollars to donuts that you and your pastor/priest differ in opinion on some portion of your religion whether you know it or not which means… who are you to decide what the sanctity of marriage is? Between the history of marriage as a slave trade, and pathetic excuse it is now, I hardly think you can complain about gay people who will probably actually bring your stats up in regards to committed long lasting relationships from where it is now.


0

Oh! “Peer-reviewed journals!” Is that what it takes? Was it “peer reviewed journals” (and not growing political pressure) that caused the the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973? Your entire posting is nothing more than a bunch of whining from a very angry person.


0

It is very interesting how a vast majority of your posts attack specific portions of a persons post, while completely ignoring large chunks of evidence they suggest against you.


Yes, please mock my mentioning of scientific research that shows you are wrong while instead bringing up a different argument.


Sinking to the level of insulting me rather then arguing using logic and reason shows how pathetic your arguments are.


Where do I even come off as angry? I provided evidence against your claims. Please refute them with facts otherwise cease talking as intelligence is required in rational debate. There am I coming across as angry now? After that, I asked you a question. Given that the entire Christian community as a whole would never be able to agree on what constitutes marriage, I laugh at the blind persistence some of you push forward with in order to protect something that none of you agree upon anyways.


0

It doesn’t matter if people were born gay. While I do believe that the primary determining factor of one’s orientation is genetic, it is also irrelevant.


Even if homosexuality was purely a choice, it needs to be a tolerated, respected option. Why? Because it doesn’t hurt anyone, and the freedoms we’re guaranteed mean that we can live as we choose so long as we don’t shit on anyone else’s parade.


You were not born a believer, and you were not born a Christian. You chose to become one, and before that someone else chose for you to be one. Your religious beliefs are a choice, and you are protected in making that choice, even though it leads you to believe intolerant, hateful, hurtful things. As long as you don’t go out and enact that hate on other citizens, your beliefs are protected. You and your fundamentalist compatriots are walking dangerously close to the line. We are sick and tired of militant extremist agenda.


0

Well pin a tail on me and call me the Antichrist, you got me! Is this a good time to mention that I’m also an ordained minister in the state of California? So it’ll be Reverend Mello to you from here on out. I’m ready and waiting, I’ll marry as many gays as ask me to preside.


As for my freedom from belief, yes, it explains how and why I am able to remove my personal feelings from the issue and assess reality objectively. The fact of the matter is that your beliefs are no different, no truer, and carry no more weight than anyone else’s in a free country. So as long as you can only come up with arguments against marriage equality couched in your religious beliefs, you cannot be taken seriously in a court of law. Good luck thumping your bible at gay families.


0

Really? You’re using that stupid Willy Wonka meme that has been floating around Facebook as your counter-argument? That’s the length to which you’ve considered this?


Not all oil in the world is produced by OPEC countries. OPEC is a production-fixing alliance between several Arab countries, a couple of South American countries, and a few African countries. Oil is a fungible commodity, so it doesn’t matter if you boycott oil produced by Chevron in favor of Arco, price per barrel is based on global availability.


Fucking a… if someone invokes OPEC in the Chick-Fil-A debate, you know right off the bat that they are wayyyyyyyy out of their element and they’re just shooting opinions from the hip.


0

There’s always a bicycle or walking…


0

You said earlier in a comment on here that you wished the third wave during the Crusades had been successful, essentially wishing the Middle Eastern Islamic people had been murdered and completely wiped out because this “world would be safer.” Maybe you should be the one boycotting OPEC. It sure sounds like you have prejudices reaching far past just homosexuals.


0

austinmello

Please help me understand the concept of “equal gay rights”. I’m straight, and I believe a gay man has every right that I currently have. I cannot go marry a man, just like a gay man can’t. So, where is it don’t we have equal rights?


0

Because the right we’re fighting to protect is not “the right to marry someone of the opposite sex” but rather “the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice.” Plain and simple. Some individuals are not attracted to people of the opposite sex. It is not our place to pass a value judgment on that fact, it is simply up to us to make sure that they have the same luxury and respect that you and I do. All unions must be viewed equally as we have no objective, secular grounds on which to judge otherwise. If groups disagree about what is acceptable based on their personal beliefs, we HAVE to err on the side of acceptance and of civil liberties, that’s pretty much the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment. It is practically THE ideal the country was founded on and structured around.


0

You haters always reveal yourselves…Freudian or not.

We see you for what you A-holes are anyway.


0

Potty mouth? Is that the best you have?


0

Never once did Mr. Cathy ever suggest that his establishment discriminates against gays, not would they ever. He simply stated his own personal view on gay marriage. How this issue is being distorted reminds me of playing operator as a kid…the first kid says….”I think marriage should be about a man and a woman”, the last kid to get the message heard…”all gay people should be placed on a desert island”…c’mon people, it’s called 1st amendment rights, and we’re ALL entitled to it…


0

In reality, the idea that their business practices discrimination in hiring or serving is such a tiny piece of the motivator for protesting the business. The real issue is that gay marriage needs to stay legal and that camps attempting to brainwash people straight are hate crimes. Gays deserve all of the rights you seem to think are being denied Dan Cathy, equal access to marriage very much included.


You cannot cry out for the rights of one and ignore those of another. Nobody is trying to prevent him from holding personal beliefs, we’re just trying to uphold Religious Freedom by making sure that his beliefs don’t squash the rights of those who believe differently from him.


0

It amazes me how these sexual deviants can weild so much power. It is a sad commentary on what this country has become.


0

You’re right, people as disgusting and small-minded as Dan Cathy having sex should be considered deviant. And as for those 1%ers wielding power, well, this America, and the dollar rules the people just like it should! Long live the GOP, let’s leave the power and wealth to those who already have it!


/sarcasm


0
1 2 3 4