News24

US chicken chain in gay marriage row

2012-07-27 12:00

Washington - Protesters targeted a Chick-fil-A food truck in Washington on Thursday after the fast-food chain's president came out candidly against same-sex marriage.

"Ho-ho, hey-hey, Chick-fil-A is anti-gay," chanted a young crowd of around 20 demonstrators, with no apparent impact on the steady flow of patrons picking up chicken sandwiches and nuggets under the hot midday sun.

Mainly present in the southern United States, but expanding into other parts of the country, Chick-fil-A is as famous for its Christian values - it never opens on Sundays - as it is for its menu.

But company president Dan Cathy angered gay rights groups and their allies when he criticised marriage equality, saying last week that Americans are "inviting God's judgment" by accepting the idea that two people of the same sex can wed.

Elected officials in Boston and Chicago have gone so far as to tell Chick-fil-A to stay out of their towns, while the Jim Henson Company said it would no longer supply its popular puppet toys to the family-owned chain.

Dan Rafter of the Human Rights Campaign, which organised the Washington protest, said Chick-fil-A has a "long history" of funding groups that oppose greater rights for gays and lesbians.

Support from the church

"We're here to educate consumers," he said. "The Cathys have their personal beliefs, and that's fine... but there's a difference between personal beliefs and having them dictate your company's decisions and donations."

The dean of evangelical preachers in the United States, Billy Graham, sided strongly with Chick-fil-A and the Cathy family, which launched the 1 600-outlet chain in 1967.

"Each generation faces different issues and challenges, but our standard must always be measured by God's word. I appreciate the Cathy family's public support for God's definition of marriage," Graham, aged 93, said in a statement.

He endorsed a call by former Republican White House candidate turned talk show host Mike Huckabee for supporters of traditional marriage to go out and eat en masse at their local Chick-fil-A on 1 August.

"As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to 'Eat Mor Chikin' and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A next Wednesday," he said, quoting the chain's advertising slogan.

Critics of Chick-fil-A plan their own same-sex "kiss-in" for 3 August.

Comments
  • patrick.buckley.712 - 2012-07-27 12:25

    "Dan Cathy" That is the "gayest" name I ever heard.....

  • leon.roux.58 - 2012-07-27 12:37

    I do not want to get involved in any gay/anti gay discussions, only want to comment of the face value of what pro gay activist Dan Rafter said: We're here to educate consumers," he said. "The Cathy’s have their personal beliefs, and that's fine... but there's a difference between personal beliefs and having them dictate your company's decisions and donations." Is he is saying be someone at home and then be someone else at work? That person you could call a hypocrite not? And Dan - I am sure the Cathy’s can decide there company's donations without consulting anyone - let alone you. You sound like you previously lived in SA with that comment. hehehehe

  • phae.rayden - 2012-07-27 13:14

    These religious mental hostages still have the absolute right to run their business the way they see fit. Leave them alone.

  • janalbert.vandenberg - 2012-07-27 14:42

    I think if someone holds a certain view in his/her business, no one can tell them what they may or may not say about some other group of people. If you don't agree with their views, don't buy their goods. If Woolworths remove religious magazines from their stalls and as a Christian you object, then don't buy at Woolworths! If you disagree with the anti-gay comments of said Chick-fil-A CEO, then don't buy their products! Easy enough, right; and just for the record, I'm gay. And though I would probably not support Chick-fil-A should I ever have the option, I still think the guy should be allowed to say whatever it pleases him to say. It says more about him, the way he behaves, than it does about Christianity. I know many tolerant Christians. And I also know many gay Christians. Funny, that.

  • hc12345 - 2012-07-27 14:46

    Why must everything always come down to Christian or God? It is unnatural and only accepted because enough people in society accepts it. It is a fact that it is only accepted because enough people say it is OK to be gay If enough people accept that it is okay to abuse little children then society will also persecute those who do not accept it as natural!

      janalbert.vandenberg - 2012-07-27 14:58

      The unnatural argument isn't good. Some animals display gay behaviour, that does not *necessarily* make it right, or wrong. Some animals do some very unnatural things by human standards. It is not a matter of "it's okay because society accepts it". Lemme phrase this way: should whites be allowed to marry blacks, is that only 'okay because society accepts it'? When we allowed interracial marriage, did that immediately lead to paedophilia, huh? What about interfaith marriage? Should atheists be allowed to love on another? I accept if you don't like the idea that gays should marry in your church, that is fair enough and no-one can say otherwise to you, that is your right. But there is a BIG difference between two adults loving each other (regardless of sexual orientation), and being willing to be committed to that love, and child-abuse. If you cannot see that, then you are really more dimwitted than most Christians I know.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-07-27 16:05

      @ hc12345 - Epic logic fail. Just.....Epic. We are not discussing prison-rape or the sexual predation and abuse of children and other sexual deviations or misconduct. We are discussing mutually fulfilling relationships between consenting adults, who just happen to be the same sex. You are comparing chalk & cheese. See the difference now?

      jody.beggs - 2012-07-30 12:20

      @hc12345 many religious people burned witches at the stake is that "normal" and god's honest work ? What about killing gays, rape survivors , lying children , atheists , non-believers in the buy bull , is that gods honest work again ? Your using a typical xians argument but alas we are talking about consenting adults not catholic pedophiles or the buy bull stance on raping a virgin , by the way do you know what happens to raped virgins in the buy bull ? Damn the man.

  • Eduannn - 2012-07-27 15:42

    I do not understand this at all. Why HIJACK a centuries old concept such as marriage ? We have all always known that marriage is between a man and a woman AND I am NOT talking from a Christian perspective. My suggestion : Why do gays not call a lifelong commitment between two people something else like for instance - call it a JOINING ? Then all the lawmakers have to do is to write into law all the benefits that 'married' couples supposedly have and also link it to 'joined' couples. WHY HIJACK THE CONCEPT of MARRIAGE. Create your own new concept - call it something else and thereafter change laws to recognize both concepts as having the same status.

      janalbert.vandenberg - 2012-07-27 15:55

      Fair enough. Years in the past people have always known that white people only marry whites, and black people only blacks; and that changed, but that's probably just moral degradation... However, I can understand why you want to uphold a tradition which you regard as sacrosanct, and I agree that gay people should not be forcing their (oft arrogant) views down other people's necks (and do keep in mind I am myself gay). Now ironically, for the moment gay people actually may get married here in South Africa, although that may change soon, I guess you will probably feel that is a good thing. And that is a fair view which you may espouse. And no gay person should ever be allowed to force a church to marry them, that is just plain wrong in my honest opinion. I think the problem arises when two gay people (who consider themselves 'joined' as you call it), are not given the same privileges as married people have. As example: friend of mine recently died after a serious vehicle incident. His partner of over 15 years were not allowed to visit him before he finally died (even though he specifically requested it), because the patient's (somewhat religious) parents felt that that would not be a good thing for a man: do die with his "very sordid and sinful" partner. Do you think that when people are 'joined' that they would be given the grace to die in peace, as they prefer? There will always be someone that will *not* recognise such laws... They will call it their God-given right.

      Eduannn - 2012-07-27 16:44

      QF - again you are looking at it from a mainly religous viewpoint. My opinion is not based on religion. I would just find it difficult to explain the word 'marriage' to my daughter if it also included people of same sex. I have always only seen it as a decision between a man and a woman to make a lifelong commitment to each other. Solution again : if such a commitment between two same sex partners are recognized as for example a 'joining'. Then it is quite easy to solve each individual case of discrimination: for instance if 'married' couples can adopt why can 'joined' couples not if their was such a case. Such a case could quite easily be resolved by legal means. Once the legality of the 'joining' is an accepted norm that norm can establish itself next to the equal norm of 'marriage'. I just think that the word 'marriage' is an imprinted CONCEPT (idea) that has come too far down the centuries to now be changed. I also sometimes think that gay people are unfair in asking EVERYONE to abandon their centuries old views as to how they see the concept of marriage (remember mine personally are NOT BASED on Christianity) - why should I have to change the picture that I see of a marriage?

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-07-27 16:54

      Eduann, because your picture is narrow, prejudiced and hurtful.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-07-27 17:00

      Come on Eduannn, it's clear using your child as a human shield for your obviously religiously motivated prejudices. Man up and use your own reasoning, if in fact you have any which will hold water. You'll have to try a little (actually a lot) harder than that to convince people your motivation is completely secular in origin. I doubt your kid is stupid, she will understand just fine. Unless she is one of those children these kids were coached into mimicking - www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_OnP4JKi08 If she is, then it's your fault.

      Eduannn - 2012-07-27 17:29

      Fred - and you think it does not hurt to be told that by you that my view of a 'marriage' as I see it and as it has been defined for centuries is now totally and utterly destroyed - and that you also think I am 'narrowminded' and 'prejudiced'. See what QF wrote (not me):"and I agree that gay people should not be forcing their (oft arrogant) views down other people's necks (and do keep in mind I am myself gay)". BOB - did you read - I said it not once - I do NOT believe in Christianity or in any religion for that matter - there is NO SUCH thing as an afterlife!!!!! I believe in peace and an equal place under the sun for EVERYONE. I merely suggested that a new NORM, CONCEPT, IDEA evolves which caters for same sex partners in order to stop this continued bickering and fighting between the mainly religious people on the one side and the gays on the other. Would that not be wonderful? Again - why HIJACK someone elses centuries old concept, idea, norm. Create your own - at least something that is original and can be carried forward for the next few centuries by ALL people.

      Eduannn - 2012-07-27 17:45

      Simply put: Daugthter : "Dad what is a marriage?" Dad: 'That is when a man and a woman decide to live together for the rest of their lives and put on pretty clothes and give each other rings and kiss' Daughter : Dad what is a 'joining'?" Dad: That is when two men or two women decide to live together for the rest of their lives and put on pretty clothes and give each other rings and kiss' I cannot simplify that anymore and what would be wrong with that picture? To me it makes complete sense.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-07-27 18:48

      @ Eduannn - Severely weak argument, and despite your claims of being irreligious, I am not completely convinced. But I'll grant you your irreligious claims, but not without observing that you have must have lived a very sheltered, molly-coddled life in which you had no opportunities, nor any necessity, to appreciate, adapt to and/or tolerate concepts outside the bounds of your own very delicate narrow-minded world-view. What role your parents, teachers, siblings, role models etc etc may have played in this, I'm unsure and couldn't really care to speculate, but it seriously is strange for someone, especially one claiming to be irreligious, to be so derailed about the 'hijacking' of marriage. And please, do not fallaciously mistake QF's concession regarding the arrogance of SOME gay people as supportive of your argument. All it proves is they are people like the rest of us and are capable of arrogance, nothing more, nothing less. The legal term 'marriage' can quite safely fit same-sex couples without shattering your delicate little world. Just get over it. How about I fix your daddy/daughter dialogue for you - Daugthter : "Dad what is a marriage?" Dad: 'That is when two people love eachother and decide to live together for the rest of their lives. They may choose to invite all of their closest family and friends to celebrate their decision and they may choose to confirm this by giving each other rings, exchanging vows and kissing eachother.' Was that so difficult?

      Eduannn - 2012-07-27 19:10

      Bob - Daughter : "and will they one day have children?" ANOTHER legal term 'xxxxxxx' can quite safely BE CREATED TO fit same-sex couples without shattering your delicate little world. Just get over it

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-07-27 19:43

      @ Eduannn - Why does the legal fraternity have to jump through all those hoops, as much as they would love to milk it for every last dollar, just because you can't string a few words together and convey a relatively easy concept to your daughter? You will have a harder time explaining the apparent unfairness inflicted on a male/female married couple who desparately want a child of their own, yet are unable to have children for some biological, genetic, medical reason, than you will explaining the simple fact that 2 men or 2 women simply cannot make their own baby together. Just think what an opportunity it will be to discuss with your daughter the possible joys any couple can experience when adopting a child and giving it the love and care it may never have known. And that can apply to any couple now, can't it?

      Eduannn - 2012-07-27 19:54

      Bob - enough ! We have millions of words describing millions of concepts - if something is different we call it by a different name. SO in this instance - I see NO reason why two different concepts should use the same terminology. I always thought gays wanted the same LEGAL rights and that was what their fight was about. SO use your imagination, create your own terminology and the LEGAL framework that supports it. I would hate to have to lie to my daughter!!

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-07-27 20:19

      If you would rather lie to your daughter than tell her the truth, that's your problem, but ultimately hers as well, which is highly unfortunate. There's an awesome opportunity in there for her to not grow up as sheltered and prejudiced as you did. If you do anything for her, do her that one favour Eduannn. Tell me Eduannn, is gay people's love for eachother different? Do they want to live together? Do they want to share a bed together? Nurse eachother when sick? Eat breakfast together? Visit friends together? Have dinner parties and braais with their friends & family? Enjoy mutual interests together? Laugh together? Walk together? Cry together? Watch movies together? Go on holiday together? Raise children together? Would they die for eachother? Donate a kidney to the other? Will they fight with eachother? Cheat on eachother? Break up with one another? Make up with one another? Sounds like marriage to me, Eduannn. 'Joining'? Way to make it sound like woodwork, Eduannn, when it's life and love....as real to them as yours is to you, in every sense.

      Eduannn - 2012-07-27 21:55

      Tell me Bob, are people's love for their pets different? Do they want to live together? Do they want to share a bed together? Nurse eachother when sick? Eat breakfast together? Visit friends together? Have dinner parties and braais with their friends & family? Enjoy mutual interests together? Laugh together? Walk together? Cry together? Watch movies together? Go on holiday together? Raise children together? Would they die for eachother? Donate a kidney to the other? Will they fight with eachother? Cheat on eachother? Break up with one another? Make up with one another? Sounds like marriage to me, Bob. Nope not really. Typical ultra liberal thinking - Infinite freedoms in a finite world.

      janalbert.vandenberg - 2012-07-27 22:59

      Hey Eduannn (3rd n?) I can understand what you mean with 'marriage' as an inherently 'heterosexual' concept. However, I do also think that what marriage *represents* symbolically, is *more* than just the concept. And what it represents, is something same-sex partners can have. Your final comment here is, I hope, inspired by what you considered an attack on your values by the other comments. If you actually *meant* that comment, you know, regarding there being no difference between gays wanting similar 'marriage' rights, and some form of marriage-with-you-pet, then I am deeply disappointed that you came to that conclusion, because your initial comment was something I could at least relate to. I even relate to the idea that marriage as concept may well be by *definition* a male/female thing. However, it is fairly obvious that the connection that marriage *represents* between two people, you know: as sharing (what is believed to be a 'spiritual'?) love and, lets just be honest about it, bodies too, is *strongly* associated with religious connotations. If the *religious* notion is that sex outside marriage is sin, then those that believe that being gay is not a *sin*, will naturally want to have that fact acknowledged by religious institutions. Clearly that will *never* happen, regardless of what gays believe. So I think on one level you are right: marriage will always *also* be a rite of passage between members of the opposite sex. In terms of what it represents, mmm?

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-07-27 23:27

      The truth does hurt sometimes. Your image of marriage IS narrow, prejudiced and hurtful.

      Eduannn - 2012-07-28 02:25

      QF - bob and fred are just trying to be difficult for the sake of it. That invoked my last response. They have not once tried to answer my simple question : Why not find a different term for 'gay marriage' and legalise it as EQUAL to the centuries old meaning of marriage. A sort of new beginning. Then at least we will get rid of this current strife. But you make a lot of sense especially your very last sentence. I give You a huge thumbs up! I however still see one problem with the rest of your reasoning and that is the 'religious vs. gay' side of it. I believe the Western World at least will get mostly rid of religion within the next 200 years. Then that part of your problem will become mostly irrelevant.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-07-28 09:47

      @ Eduannn - We are talking people here. Consenting adult human beings. You are the one being difficult for the sake of it, mate. Your thinking is as fallacious as the pathetic slippery slope argument used above by hc12345. We can keep going at this all day and you'll just end up looking the fool. Maybe it will be good for you though.

      jody.beggs - 2012-07-30 12:15

      @Eduannn what is you problem with gays anyway , can you back up your answers with Buy Bull quotes ? Damn the man.

  • Maeddie Sloe - 2012-07-28 08:05

    edu- after everything they say i pronounce Man & Wife you my kiss da bright i dnt hv problems with gays or lesbians (definition of marriage) dat is questionable

  • jody.beggs - 2012-07-30 12:09

    @Bardy since you deleted your comment for looking like a tool here's mine ! As for the Buy Bull, you have to look at the context and the meaning behind the words. Levicticus was all about putting things in categories and different categories didn't mix. So technically you break God's law if you wear clothes that blend two different fibers. Divorce was also condemned in Levicticus but we don't forbid people to divorce or eating shellfish. Also , you should be condemned if you touch a woman in any way within 7 days of her period. What Levicticus actually meant in "man shall not lie with man as he does with woman" was a man should not treat a fellow man as his inferior as he would a woman , because treating a man as a woman was wrong. Back then, every woman belonged to a man, either her father or her husband. Having sex after the wedding to consummate the marriage was the man officially claiming ownership og his new woman. If you have sex with a virgin woman, then you had damaged another man's property. So in a essence, Levicticus was property law and your argument is invalid. Nowadays the Buy Bull is used selectively as a weapon, so unless you want to kill all unmarried, non-virginal woman,divorcees amd people wearing mixed fabrics , you can stop preaching. Damn the man.

  • pages:
  • 1