Front Page  »  

Gay couples protest Cal Poly Chick-fil-A

August 4, 2012

By KAREN VELIE

Same sex couples and their allies showed their support for gay rights at Cal Poly’s Chick-fil-A on Friday.

The fast food restaurant has been embroiled in controversy since its president Dan Cathy came out against gay marriage in June. On Wednesday, gay marriage opponents held signs outside Cal Poly’s food court supporting Chick-fil-A.

The scene on Friday included picketers at all three entrances and a few same sex couples kissing in support of “National Same Sex Kiss Day.”

Members of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GALA) held signs with statements such as “What came first the chicken or the gay,” while promoting not eating at the restaurant.

GALA President Will Russell said that after President Barack Obama came out in support of gay marriage, members of the Christian far right have become more involved in the opposition of gay marriage.

“GALA’s stance is that any form of discrimination is not ok,” Russell said. “We want to have the same rights as everyone else.”


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


48 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Simply stating an opinion , such as ” I don’t agree with same gender marriage”, by itself is not “hate” . If one follows that up with statements or actions that could encourage hateful acts, then that would be considered hateful speech.


So often in our nation If one disagrees with another’s stance , they are labeled racist, anti-semite, homophobic,..etc. The tactic of choice if the person has a business, is to try to cause financial loss , in order to punish that person for stating his/her opinion, and to try to forcibly get a retraction of that statement.


As far as homosexuals and lesbians and the transgender, they are who they are, and they shouldn’t be mistreated by anyone because of who they are.


That being said , I would agree that marriage is not a right, simply because couples have to pay a fee to get married as approval of government. True “Rights ” are free , and were paid for by the hard work and sometimes blood of those who fought for them.


0

” I would agree that marriage is not a right, simply because couples have to pay a fee to get married as approval of government.” – spartan57


This is not correct. it is not “the approval of governement” , excepting that there are societal situations of legal intrusion: incest, age of responsible status, mental capacity, both partners without duress.

Then, the compact…or contract of marriage if you will is to define a partnership arrangement that confers many other rights and privileges that are legal, uncontested, and binding. Among these are the rights of visitation and hospital privileges that all spouses enjoy. The right of inheritorship is also an unquestioned guarantee by hetero couples. Gay couples have to do legalistic flip-flops to enjoy the same “right”. Social Security survivor benefits fall under this purview.

The fees for recording a marriage are ridiculously low for the purpose of being licensed to enjoy these benefits.


So, your premise is not only wrong…it’s fallacious.


0

Hi Slower, Ok I see that marriage has been found by the courts to be under “the pursuit of happiness” clause of the 14th amendment, thanks for the reply


0

The “pursuit of happiness” is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.


You have your history twisted.

I seriously doubt that you are an actual American, or should be.


0

sorry about that !! the courts used the words” pursuit of happiness” when ruling that marriage was a right and protected under the 14th amendment. I need to read more carefully, take care.


0

What an ungodly demonstration at Cal Poly in the name of Satan! Where were the real Christian anti-protesters at this DEMONstration to support what the Christian God thinks of the homosexual lifestyle, and the least of which, gay marriage?


Since Chik-fil-a’s president Dan Cathy is against gay marriage, and for him and others not to be hypocritical Christians, and we all know what Jesus thought of hypocrites, then let him and his fellow Christians also quote the Hebrew-Christian God’s scripture relative to what He thinks about the homosexual. Case in point, like the biblically supported examples below!


“Death to homosexuals, their blood shall be upon them!” (Leviticus 20:13)


“Because of the homosexuals vile acts, they are worthy of death!” (Romans 1:18-32)


“Homosexuals are not allowed in our churches!” (Deut. 23:17-18)


Dan Cathy of Chik-fil-A is a wussy and pseudo-christian because he doesn’t go all the way with his Christian faith. If he is going to make a stand against the homosexual like he has done, then let him go all the way and follow through with displaying at his restaurants the godly statements shown above!!!


A true Christian follows ALL of “God’s inspired word” in the bible, and does not have the authority to pick and choose their biblical axiomatic passages! Get it?


0

Ted, I’m not a biblical scholar be any means , but didn’t the coming of Christ and the new covenant, change some of the old testament thinking, when the people were going to stone to death the harlot, didn’t Jesus say,”Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone” ?.


Seems like that was an end to the “Death to sinners” thinking.


0

spartan57,


Relative to the written article above, and within context to Dan Cathy, the old ruse of the New Testament superseding the Old Testament pertaining to Jesus abolishing the old laws turns into a quagmire since it is then posited that God changed His mind. Huh? “For I am the Lord; I change not” ( Malachi 3:6).


Since the bible God is omniscient (Jerimiah 1:4), anything less wouldn’t be a God, then that only complicates the matter even further to the point of total embarrassment as easily seen by using logic 101.


To the point, Jesus NEVER revoked the Old Testament laws as He orders His followers to abide by the Law of Moses ( 1st five books of the Old Testament): “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20)


Relative to Jesus’ words above pertaining ALL of the Old Testament laws, has heaven and earth disappeared yet? No, they have not. Therefore, clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence. None other then Jesus said so.


Besides, without any apologetic spin doctoring, we have; “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:5-6 ) Key words; “every word of God is pure”, which includes His word in the Old Testament. 2+2=4.


Bottom line, and leaving contradiction out of the equation? The presence of so many elements of Judaism in the Judeo-Christian bible has acted to remind the flock that he whom they worship as the Lord was himself a Jew, and supported the old laws. The New Testament does not stand on its own, but is amended from the old :(


0

Ted, so as a true Christian, does that mean that one has to follow every one of Gods laws wether directly written by God , or written by men who were inspired by God? The Bible says , death to homosexuals, literally physical death or spiritual death?


So the big question is, is a true Christian compelled to advocate death to homosexuals ? And who is to carry out this death sentence?


0

spartan57,


Your first question is one in the same. “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). The phrase “inspired by God” translates into a single Greek word, “theopneustos”, which literally means, “breathed out by God.” All Scripture is “God breathed,” exhaled by the Almighty. Few passages more clearly affirm the divine origin of the Bible.


Pertaining to your second question, unfortunately, it is physical death “…their blood shall be upon them”. It is within the same vein as when Jesus, by proxy, agreed with the aforementioned laws that He upheld, in that children that curse their parents, should be stoned to death in real time (Matthew 15:3-4).


Your last question is one of the most disturbing situations that any Christian can encounter. Whenever any Christian promotes the hatred of gays because of biblical teachings, they must assume responsibility for creating an environment that promotes the brutal violence towards the gay community.


We hear inflammatory language about gays and lesbians from the pulpits of America, and they use their special tax free based churches, radio and T.V. shows to disparage homosexuality. This can lead “indirectly “ to violence, depression, hatred, and suicide to the gay community. Remarks like this from the Christian Right, the alleged leaders of moral virtue, are dangerous and vile.


So, to address your last question, far be it from me to expound upon how the true Christian is suppose to act in relation to biblical axioms that tells them that the homosexual should be put to death. It’s a Catch-22, their damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. Do they appease their God’s direct word, or do they follow man’s moral law and become Hell’s inhabitants upon their demise? This is the oxymoronic and disturbing situation that for the astute reading Christian are placed in 24/7/365.


The irony is the fact, that if one actually followed ALL of the bible’s doctrine, they would be in prison for life in our society!


0

Ted, So if I understand correctly, unless one obeys all of Gods word including the killing of homosexuals then heaven is out of reach ? So as an example the man who killed the abortion doctor , and those who have killed gays will enjoy heaven and the rest will not? I know this is a simple statement ,but it seems to go with the saying that “christians don’t practice what they preach.” they want to have their cake and eat it too. Killing in the name of God is expected in order to appease the almighty, why doesn’t God do it himself?


0

spartan57,


In obeying the Hebrew-Christian God; “Obey and you will be blessed. Disobey and you will be cursed.” (Deuteronomy 11:26–28)


God stated; “And through your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed—all because you have obeyed me.” (Genesis 22:18)


Jesus replied, “But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice.” (Luke 11:28) This passage alone signifies that when the Christian God commands, the Christian has to put it into practice. Therefore, and unfortunately, Leviticus 20:13 comes to mind.


Let us be up front here, both of us DO NOT propose that the killing of the homosexual is sanctioned by us, but only by God’s true words as I’ve explicitly shown. It is up to the Christian to say that they’re not going to follow His words in this respect. Once disobeying this God concept in this way, the Christian may possibly see in how outrageous their belief actually is. Therefore, maybe leaving the faith altogether and taking a time out from religion in general. If not, then they are cursed and hell bound!


Anyway, the bible God killed His creation at will with plagues, pestilence, abortions, the killing of the first born in Egypt, and because a faction rebelled against Him, his chosen people were ordered by Him to bash innocent babies upon rocks and their women ripped open. ( Hosea 13:16 ) Lest we forget, his revengeful Great Flood in killing innocent life as well.


Why doesn’t the bible God kill his creation now? When He became a Christian God in the New Testament, subsequent to jettisoning the Jews, He calmed down a bit and didn’t engage in communication with His people as much anymore. Therefore, I can’t truthfully answer you. Nonetheless, through a parable, the ever loving and forgiving Jesus wanted to Kill anyone that didn’t want Him to rule over them in the Second Coming. (Luke19: 27)


In any event, you get the picture of having to truthfully follow the edicts of Christianity so one isn’t hypocritical to the faith. It’s not a pretty sight, is it?


0

thanks ted, now i think i understand the 144000 thing, not many can totally live like christ.


0

Brother Ted…I am surprised that you of all did not grasp the obvious in this situation. Perhaps the tireless efforts from your various ministries today has left you, well, tired. If so, get some rest. Your flock will reward you in some fashion, I am sure.


Anyway, Chick-fil-A and president Dan Cathy are must absolutely be agents of the devil, as per the Biblical directives: Leviticus 11:7-8 …”And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and he cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are uncleanto you. ” ..and also likewise Deuteronomy 14:8.

However, here are some items of Chick-fil-A’s breakfast menu: bacon, egg and chees biscuit; Sausage, egg and cheese biscuit; Sausage breahfast burrito; Chick-fil-A Bacon platter; Chiock-fil-A Sausage platter.


Just imagine the miilions of our young college students and other citizens that this unholy outfit has condemned to the Hellfire’s of burning sulfur lakes unawares by selling and feeding to them these unclean and cursed foods !


0

I guess Cal-Coast News had no one available on Wednesday for the show of support. Too bad.


At least you didn’t have to break out the wide-angle lens in order to photograph all 23 protesters.


0

NoCoSkeptic,


Yeah you’re right, the photograph reminds me of the Tea Party Demonstrations in our county.


0

One factor: Many gay actions are distasteful to others.


0

A man expresses his opinion, then him and his words are labeled hatred. If a gay person spoke against heterosexual couples would it be OK for numerous hetrosexual couples to converge in a public business and start making out in public view? What happen to common courtesy? I say either side should leave it at home or take it to a No’tel hotel.


0

If an “opinion” is hateful and leads to harm towards other individuals, than that person has a “hateful” opinion. Just because his words express his opinion does not make his words or his opinions not hateful.


Do you want to explain how people are harmed by kissing in public? Why shouldn’t heterosexual, as well as homosexual, people be allowed to kiss in public view for any reason?


0

An opinion is nothing more than that, ones opinion. If captain Chick “O” dick dosent like that kind of lifestyle who gives a damn, its just his opinion, its not like he stole your right to choose your lifestyle did he?. Im sorry your so fragile another’s opinion is damaging to you, there’s help for that kind of thing ya know. One of Congalton guests said it best last week, “another persons opinion of me is none of my business”. Get over it and repeat after me, stick and stones may break my bone but names will never hurt me.


0

> An opinion is nothing more than that, ones opinion.


And opinions can be hateful. If I say “I hate such and such person”, that is, by definition a hateful opinion.


> If captain Chick “O” dick dosent like that kind of lifestyle who gives a damn, its just his opinion, its not like he stole your right to choose your lifestyle did he?.


He uses his money, and his right to vote, to do exactly that.


>Im sorry your so fragile another’s opinion is damaging to you, there’s help for that kind of thing ya know.


It is not his opinions, which can be hateful, that are damaging to me, it is his actions that are damaging to me, and you, and all other persons.


> Get over it and repeat after me, stick and stones may break my bone but names will never hurt me.


Just because you think that words can not be hurtful does not make that so, but of course, I am against the hurtful actions that people like you support, and people like Cathy institute.


0

1. QUOTING DOGGIN: “A man expresses his opinion, then him and his words are labeled hatred.”


You need to get out of the basement more often. Hererosexual couples “makeout” in public with abundant frequency. ESPECIALLY college students, and often it is a lot more than “kissing.”


So it doesn’t matter what gays say or do–heterosexuals are going to be pawing and slobbering on each other in public anyway.


2. Definition of “bigot, from: Merriam-Webster Online (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot):


“bigot

big·ot

noun \ˈbi-gət\

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is 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”


0

What’s with your big song-and-dance? What exactly did you add to the discourse?


There are plenty of homosexual bigots in this world. A fair number are attacking Dan Cathy right now. They and their supporters seem to believe that they have a special license which makes them the sole arbiters of what is hate and what is bigotry. I call their actions something altogether different.


I call it hypocrisy.


0

Restricting the rights of other human beings is unethical. Some people call that hate, or bigotry, some don’t. Challenging those who wish to harm others however, is certainly not hate or bigotry, by any reasonable definition. There is no hypocrisy in fighting for the equal rights of all individuals.


0

Getting married is not a “right”, it’s a privilege.


Aside from that, homosexuals are going to have to understand at some point that now all they deem to be “hate” or “bigotry” is indeed hate or bigotry.


0

“Getting married is not a “right” , it’s a privilege.” Not quite; having a religious ceremony performed in a house of worship is a “privilege”, for sure, having a civil union ceremony performed by a Justice of the Peace that has a government issued “marriage license” is a right, if the two parties meet the criteria (of age of consent, not blood-related, acting of their own free will, etc.). Unfortunately in our society, in most counties, it is not “legal” for same gender couples to get married, even though any opposite sex couple that meet the criteria can, so that is “discrimination”.

Mr. Cathy of Chick-fil-A has every “right” to state his opinion, and everyone who doesn’t agree with him is free to protest against his position. By all regards, Mr. Cathy is an astute business person having grown his business very well; for him to make a public pronouncement like this is a very calculated risk. He seems to be banking on the public sentiment that since President Obama has publicly stated that he thinks same-sex couples should be allowed to get married, this is an issue conservatives can ride to the November elections and use against the Democrats. It really is a shame that America seems to be wanting to go backwards in some areas; continuing to deny LGBT persons exactly all the rights afforded to straights appears to be pushing us back towards the fifties, not forward towards 2020.


0

Honestly I don’t see any reason that he state or any other form of government should recognize any sort of religious ‘marriage” File the paperwork for two person corporation, The Republicans will honor that as if it’s a person. Problem solved. You are welcome.


0

That’s probably the answer. Get gov’t all the way out of marriage. It’s certainly not up to them to extend the privilege to homosexuals.


0

The main problem I can see with your intelligent suggestion is that it would require a complete rewrite of all government code that is currently in place regarding the status of “married” persons. You are probably right about Republicans honoring an incorporation of two persons since it would give them (eventually, once the all of the laws governing marriages is completed) all the same “rights” as are defined by current marriage status. The biggest obstacle IMO is that currently the Republicans in the House cannot or will not move almost any legislation through unless it is to take away rights from some or deny rights to others. If you could convince me that Republican lawmakers would get behind your suggestion fully, embracing it to the point of actually making it happen, I guess I would fine with it. Good luck.


0

“…It really is a shame that America seems to be wanting to go backwards in some areas…”


“Backwards?”


Have you ever considered that millions of Americans simply want to arrest the out of control slide down the mountain before we go off a cliff into the abyss?


What you call “forward” is DOWN to many people…


0

Once again, getting married is not a “right”, it’s a privilege.


In many states first cousins cannot be married. In other states they can only be married over a certain age when they cannot reproduce. I don’t know of any state in the union that allows one to be legally married to more than one person at a time. One cannot legally marry their siblings or quite obviously, their parents. And yes, most states constitutionally states limit marriage to one man and one woman. There is no “right.”


That’s the facts.


0

links inside to case law about the right to marry , now please explain to everyone, how is it that a right to marry exists for all inmates in ALL FIFTY STATES but is a privilege for the rest of us???

go on now

give us your best shot


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=78


0

Crusader: What part of “two, unrelated adults of consenting age acting of their own free will” don’t you get? THAT is what I stated in my response to you. Specifically, non-blood related adults would eliminate any questions of siblings, father-daughter, mother-son combinations from getting married as well as first cousins in most states as well. I only mentioned five, ten or fifty wives since the Bible is full of stories about many religious figures in history had several wives and since you display your religiosity on your sleeve (so to speak), I thought you might want to make allowances for men who are crazy enough to take on more than one wife at a time, since it is in the Bible.

“Two persons (humans only), not blood related, of the age of consent (in most states, 18 years old) acting of their own free will (not being coerced in any manner); right now, those are the rules in most states, most municipalities, with one exception, in most areas the two people have to be of opposite gender. Since it is a “right” for opposite gender adults that meet the requirements to be married, it is discrimination, pure and simple when same gender couples are denied that same right, period. You make the claim over and over that marriage is not a right; back up your assertion with some evidence, some facts, some links or urls to prove your assertion, otherwise, please sit down and be quiet. Your saying it over and over again does not make it so; prove your point.


0

> Getting married is not a “right”, it’s a privilege.


I’m glad you think so. Leaving aside any considerations regarding your ability to support this view, which others have already addressed, why don’t you explain to me why you think this “ought to be how it is”.


> Aside from that, homosexuals are going to have to understand at some point that now all they deem to be “hate” or “bigotry” is indeed hate or bigotry.


I assure you, people, regardless of sexuality understand at some point now that all they deem to be hate or bigotry is indeed hate and bigotry. Your typo is quite revealing.


0

“GALA’s stance is that any form of discrimination is not ok,” Russell said.


Unless it’s discrimination against someone else’s freedom of speech. Puts them on the same level as those against whom they demonstrate.


0

Protesting against the content of someone’s speech is not the same as protesting their right to speak. Arguing against the content of speech is not a restriction of free speech, it is the highest example of free speech.


0

Oh, I see. You have the right to speak, but you’d better agree with me. Otherwise, I will try to destroy what you have built.


0

Is this really what you think I said? What I said is that you have the right to speak, and I have the right to disagree with you. That is what “Arguing against the content of speech is not a restriction of free speech, it is the highest example of free speech.” means. If I disagree with you, I have every right not to give you my money. That doesn’t mean that I intend to cause you harm, or “destroy you”. I suggest you read what I wrote, and not write what you think I think.


0

You DO have every right not to give me your money. Not giving me your money, though, deprives me of SOME of my livlihood. Conversely, if I don’t agree with you, do I have the right to go to YOUR place of business and and deprive you of some of your livlihood (whether it be a business you own or work for)? Further, do I have the right to organize others to go there to deprive you of more of your livlihood?


It works both ways.


0

lol………..WHO CARES?????????????


0

Anybody who stands against bigotry should care.


0

What did they accomplish again?


0

Quite a bit more than you have. They’ve spread their message, a message against hate and inequality. They’ve built bonds between people united in favor of the equal rights of all individuals.


0

Thankfully they’re not the arbiters of what “hate” and “inequality” are.


0

And neither are you.


0

You would think the food alone would be enough to discourage anyone from eating there.


0

I have never sought out this franchise because the name is so stupid.


But that’s not germane to the story at hand either.


0