Chick-fil-A and Homosexuality

[episcopotic]

1) What, EXACTLY, have they SAID, and then DONE, about homosexuality. Has the company established an anti-gay policy in all its stores, saying that it will not serve gays? Has it established an anti-gay policy so far as hiring, whereby openly gay employees will be terminated and/or will not receive promotions? Is there any action the company has taken explicitly against gays, other than the CEO spouting off his own opinion? And instead of "I heard ..." or "They say...." show me the money. Provide a reputable source (that means Fox News or better) where the corporation's policy is published as being anti-gay.

CFA has put money into organizations (Pennsylvania Family Institute, mostly) that supported California Prop 8 and tried to strike down anti-discrimination laws in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the PFI fought against a bill that would add LGBT groups to protected classes when it concerned hiring, firing, etc. The PFI wants to keep it legal to fire someone because they're gay. CFA PR people have stated, however, that the money for PFI came from a local restaurant owner; i.e. this particular set of donations does not reflect a company-wide agenda. Here's more detail: snopes.com: Chick-fil-A and Same-Sex Marriage

However, the company as a whole has given money to the Family Research Council, which is quite vocal about what it's doing with it, and CFA explicitly recognizes the significance of the link. That's what the current uproar concerns, as far as I can tell.

The company has no policies on paper about not hiring LGBT folks. That would be the quickest way to get them into a lawsuit and ensure that it becomes a protected class. You will never find this sort of thing, apologies, even if every Chick-Fil-A practiced it as the rule of law.

Now, if you want to go shopping somewhere where you can be sure you'll never see a fat person, you'll probably go to such-and-such groceries. Perhaps such-and-such groceries has done demographic studies, and found that people really want the option to shop at a store where they can be sure they won't have to look at fat people, and that there are enough skinny and normal-sized people who feel that way that they'll make good money with that policy. Or maybe they just don't like fat people, which is their right, in which case they will lose business "the old fashioned way" -- fewer customers. Whatever. No lawsuits necessary. No "Equal Opportunity Legislation for Fat People" need be passed by any senates. People vote with their feet, with their money. If they don't like a way a business runs, they don't do business there. Simple as that.

So Chick-Fil-A doesn't like gays. Let all the people who don't like gays go eat their greasy chicken sandwiches, and the rest of us will enjoy our Wendy's or Burger King or whatever.

This is a good solution in singular, isolated cases. Eventually, however, if fat people are treated to this sort of discrimination by sufficiently large sectors of society, they won't have the option of relocation, etc. This is, for example, why racial minorities are considered a protected class by US law - in days past, in some entire regions of the country they could walk for miles and not find a grocery store to serve them. In those places where they could, the opportunities wouldn't be remotely comparable. This sort of relocation results in ghettoization, which we have as a country determined is unsatisfactory. The fact that there's a grocery store in, say, Alaska that wants to serve them is not sufficient.

Other than Brenda Honeycutt, who is suing for gender discrimination and not for any LGBT issues, I haven't personally heard anybody seriously suggesting a suit against Chick-Fil-A. Rather, lots of boycotts. I disagree that it's simple, however.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Here's more detail: snopes.com: Chick-fil-A and Same-Sex Marriage
Thanks for the link. It's good to see that someone is actually doing some research rather than just swallowing whatever their favorite pundit says. I'm seeing disappointing responses on BOTH sides of this issue.

You will never find this sort of thing, apologies, even if every Chick-Fil-A practiced it as the rule of law.

Yup! Lawyers get paid lots of money to make sure of that.

This is a good solution in singular, isolated cases. Eventually, however, if fat people are treated to this sort of discrimination by sufficiently large sectors of society, they won't have the option of relocation, etc. This is, for example, why racial minorities are considered a protected class by US law....

Excellent point. And I think this is where the rubber hits the road.

Currently, gays are NOT a "protected minority" in all 50 states. There are many states in the US where gays can be denied jobs, denied housing, etc., simply on the basis of them being gay.

The argument used by people who say denying rights to gays is different than denying rights to blacks is this: a black person cannot -- the late Michael Jackson, rip, perhaps being the exception to prove the rule -- choose his or her race. A gay person may or may not be able to choose their orientation (which is a debate for another thread), but they CAN choose whether or not to give in to that orientation. Don't want to risk losing your home or job? Just don't have sex with someone outside of marriage. It's not that hard to do ... not have sex.

On the other hand, let's say a sexual choice is open fodder for employment or housing rights. By what other "choices" could one be excluded? If an employer is an atheist and doesn't like Christians, he (or she) could argue that that same rule could apply to him not having to hire Christians. After all, you can always "choose" not to be a Christian. Or at least not to "practice" your faith (by going to church or expressing your faith in any outward way).

The difference here is relatively simple: religion is specifically protected by the Bill of Rights. Sexual "preference" (or "orientation" if you believe it is not a choice) is not specifically protected by the Bill of Rights. But I think most people could see how quickly the issue becomes way more complex than this.

I guess what I'm saying is that instead of asking "is it a sin" or "is it not a sin," there is a larger question here: whether or not it's a sin, how do we deal with it, as a nation?

 

[Daniel94]

I guess what I'm saying is that instead of asking "is it a sin" or "is it not a sin," there is a larger question here: whether or not it's a sin, how do we deal with it, as a nation?

I have made what I believe clear in this thread and others, however, I am going to answer your question without any bias.

If you really think about it we as a country have to accept homosexuals with open arms. I mean honestly this country was formed on the fact we are to be the land of the FREE. This means you can believe and do what you want as long as you don't break the law and even the law doesn't stop some people from doing what they want.

Although when you really look at it you have to take your freedom with a grain of salt because of the law and our citizens. If you look at this situation we are currently talking about, the CEO of Chick-fil-A has a freedom of speech and religion to basically say and believe what he wants. In this particular situation I don't believe he is breaking any laws, but he is being criticized for his views and opinions which is what I meant by taking your freedom with a grain of salt because of the citizens.

 

[rainacorn]

I find it very strange that Chick-Fil-A has become the battleground for the gay marriage debate.

It's kind of crazy how powerless citizens in a democracy feel on this issue that we need to slug it out in a fried chicken store. Boycotting or supporting Chick-Fil-A is the only voice we have, it seems.

 

[episcopotic]

The argument used by people who say denying rights to gays is different than denying rights to blacks is this: a black person cannot -- the late Michael Jackson, rip, perhaps being the exception to prove the rule -- choose his or her race. A gay person may or may not be able to choose their orientation (which is a debate for another thread), but they CAN choose whether or not to give in to that orientation. Don't want to risk losing your home or job? Just don't have sex with someone outside of marriage. It's not that hard to do ... not have sex.

On the other hand, let's say a sexual choice is open fodder for employment or housing rights. By what other "choices" could one be excluded? If an employer is an atheist and doesn't like Christians, he (or she) could argue that that same rule could apply to him not having to hire Christians. After all, you can always "choose" not to be a Christian. Or at least not to "practice" your faith (by going to church or expressing your faith in any outward way).

This is the reason I'm not particularly interested in the nature vs. nurture vs. choice debate, even though I have strong opinions on which it happens to be. I'm surprised more on both sides don't reason as you do above.

I guess what I'm saying is that instead of asking "is it a sin" or "is it not a sin," there is a larger question here: whether or not it's a sin, how do we deal with it, as a nation?

I walk by several Catholic churches and a single Hindu temple on my way to work every morning. If you take the Protestant critique seriously, they're all guilty of idolatry, breaking one of the most important Ten Commandments. Remarkably, nobody seems to be in an uproar about them, which causes one to wonder, but in any case suggests that for the most part we're ok with a laissez-faire approach for even the worst sins.

 

[oldmanbill]

Never ate there but I will this Wednesday!

Why does the Christian majority allow a very small minority of homosexuals and liberal media to push us around??

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

If you really think about it we as a country have to accept homosexuals with open arms. I mean honestly this country was formed on the fact we are to be the land of the FREE. This means you can believe and do what you want as long as you don't break the law and even the law doesn't stop some people from doing what they want.

Very well said, and I agree 100%.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Remarkably, nobody seems to be in an uproar about them

Slightly off topic, but there are a lot of evangelicals who complain about idolatry in the RCC. Nonetheless, your point is still valid.

 

[Nautilus]

Why does the Christian majority allow a very small minority of homosexuals and liberal media to push us around??

Well whether they are a minority or not they still have rights and deserve equality. The Declaration of Independence states, '…all men are created equal…' so that means even if you disagree with someone they deserve the same rights you do, unless you are actually closeminded enough to declare them inferior beings at which point you are the one acting inferior.

 

[Dude653]

I disagree. It is true, if we look through the Bible, that we find 6 scriptures that reference same-sex behavior. However, a closer study of the history of the Scripture and the context in which it was written leads me to believe that homosexuality is NOT a sin.
I repeat: if there's anything that frustrates me more than bigotry and hate where there should be acceptance and love, it's cherry-picking Scripture. Plucking verses from the Bible that SEEM to prove your point without reading deeper into it is theological laziness of the worst degree.


People are blowing this WAY out of proportion. They never said anything hateful or disrespectful. They simply stated that they believe that marriage is to between a man and a women and that they believe that homosexuality is wrong. The problem is that anytine someone takes a stand on a biblical issue, he or she is labeled a bigot...Now whos the intolerant one??

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

People are blowing this WAY out of proportion. They never said anything hateful or disrespectful. They simply stated that they believe that marriage is to between a man and a women and that they believe that homosexuality is wrong. The problem is that anytine someone takes a stand on a biblical issue, he or she is labeled a bigot...Now whos the intolerant one??

The problem is, marriage, in the U.S., is not a religious issue, it is a legal, secular one. For religious purposes, you can believe that marriage is only valid between one white man and one white female virgin for all I care, but that does not constitute valid reasoning to deny rights.

Currently, the institution of marriage in the U.S. bestows thousands of rights that are NOT granted to "civil unions." For that reason, it's as simple as this:

IF you want to deny the right of gay couples to get married, then you are denying equal rights to gays.

IF you are denying equal rights to gays, then you are being hateful and disrespectful.

Now, if you're okay being labeled a bigot, then you go right ahead and continue fighting against marriage rights for gays. You just need to realize where that puts you.

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

The concept of marriage is innately Christian.
If you want to give homosexuals a "marriage" you are offering them a Christian covenant before God. If they would like to change their lives and give their lives to Jesus and put away their lifestyle, then I'm all for it. Marriage has always been and will be Christian.
As the bible says, render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, the nation should change what the concept of a civil union is and work from there.

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

Let me fix that
Marriage has always been and will be of God.

 

[episcopotic]

The concept of marriage is innately Christian. If you want to give homosexuals a "marriage" you are offering them a Christian covenant before God. If they would like to change their lives and give their lives to Jesus and put away their lifestyle, then I'm all for it. Marriage has always been and will be Christian.

I'm curious, then - does the same sort of reasoning apply to Hindus, Muslims, atheists, etc.? To me, this is the natural consequence of defining terms in terms of Christianity, that we must eventually go after idolaters who, if I read the Bible correctly, are discussed every few pages. It makes me a little uncomfortable - once we've decided that gays can't call it marriage because their arrangement isn't Christian, where does that stop?

As the bible says, render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, the nation should change what the concept of a civil union is and work from there.

On this, I couldn't agree more.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

The concept of marriage is innately Christian. {snip}
Marriage has always been and will be Christian.

So before Pentecost and the birth of the Christian Church, there was no marriage?

I guess not only was it not Adam and Steve, it wasn't even Adam and Eve.

Sorry, but the word "marriage" is not copy-written by Christians. The English language isn't even half as old as Christianity ... let alone any word therein. What an asinine position to take, that your religion has absolute control or ownership over a certain word.

And don't try to dig yourself out of this hole by saying you meant the concept of marriage rather than the word. The concept of marriage is not uniquely Christian. Non-Christians get married all the time, and have been doing so since long before Gabriel visited Mary, let alone before the Christian Church even started.

For THOUSANDS of years of human history, marriage -- the uniting of two people into a family unit -- has had nothing to do with religion. It was purely political. Until the middle ages, those of lower classes weren't even allowed to get married. After all, if there was no property, so what point was there to get married? And no one cared about adultery unless there was offspring. Men were not expected to remain faithful, it's just that any offspring conceived outside a properly blessed marriage "didn't count" because then the two families had not agreed on the exchange of property. It had nothing to do with purity or holiness, let alone with God.

It wasn't until recently in human history that Western Civilization has started to frame marriage in anything other than an exchange of property. The reason gays could not get married is because there would be no natural offspring from a homosexual pairing, and therefore no need for the relationship to be codified. There were gays. Heavens, yes, many famous figures throughout history were known for their homosexual and/or heterosexual philandering. It wasn't even a scandal. That's just the way it was. Sex wasn't reserved for marriage, and marriage wasn't necessarily reserved for sex. The couple was expected to have at least one male offspring, and that was it. The running assumption is that they wouldn't want to have sex (with each other) except to produce that one male offspring. Why would anyone want to spend intimate time with his or her spouse, when there are so many more exciting people out there to have sex with, just for fun?

THAT is what marriage was, originally.

We have most certainly redefined marriage in the last few decades. Interested in going back to the way it was? I didn't think so.

Interested in continuing to redefine it? Fine. Join us in the discussion of how we should define it, and we can talk.

But trying to claim some sort of "ownership" of the concept of marriage, as if it's always been some holy institution is either ignorant or an outright lie. Take your pick.

 

[Ugly]

My stance on this issue is thus because I REJECT the notion that homosexuality is a sin at all. There are six passages in the Bible that refer in some way to same-sex behavior. When taken in context, NONE of them condemn gay marriage and homosexuality (at least, not in any way that is different from the Bible's warnings against heterosexual lust and adultery).

Classic. 'The bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. Other than saying its just as sinful as other sexual sins. But i still insist its not a sin.' Great logic.

 

[alienx7587]

I'm amazed at the stupidity of this whole ordeal. All I can say is, I reckon tomorrow is going to be a good day to have stock in Chick-Fil-A... too bad there aren't any in Upstate New York!

 

[abair]

there is no problem to Tell your opinion in action or belief and treat the people who do or believe that fairly

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

God says our bodies are temples. If that is true, then greasy, over-processed chicken sandwiches (or any other fast food, for that matter) certainly are not holy food for God's temple.

I'm not saying Chick-Fil-A is any worse than McDonald's, Wendy's, or any other purveyor of deep-friend heart attacks. I am saying that I'm not convinced a fast-food chain CEO is one who should be pretending to be the authority on wholesome living.

 

[smithbr8]

Personally, I have no issue with him saying he is against homosexuality. I myself am not against it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, these people are people too. I believe homosexuality is not a choice any more than someone can choose to be born with brown or blue eyes. Yes, you can change yourself with surgery to be brown eyed if you were born with blue, but you're lying about the way that God made you. God has a plan for everyone, whether one is gay, straight, black, white, blonde, brunette, it doesn't- or rather- shouldn't matter.

But to have a company say "You can buy our sandwiches here all you want and we'll take your money, but you're still an unholy abomination" seems a little extreme. Everyone sins. All sins are the same in God's eyes. Meaning every single customer is an unholy abomination in some fashion. Why zone in on one group of sinners?