Lol. It was meant to emphasize the point that even Obama has a right to his own opinion - even if he changes it. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. That was the point of that comment which is on topic due to the fact that we're discussing freedom of speech as protected by the first amendment.

I still don't get it, to be honest. What does a person changing their mind have to do with freedom of speech? I think there are a lot of folks who intend to "boycott" Obama in November by voting for Romney. There are certainly a lot of folks who are speaking out against Obama for his views. So what?

That is not entirely true. Governments and government officials do have the authority and responsibility to prevent activities within their jurisdictions that cross certain lines. Banning hate speech in some instances or inciting riots are two examples. I'll concede that Boston, Chicago, et al. are likely on shaky legal ground and those statements by the mayors were probably more political than anything. But I think they did the right thing by sending a message to CF that their stance was inconsistent with the values of those communities.


People who work at CF are now being abused by customers who come in and praise them for "hating gays."

And yes, I do think that if CF employees lose their jobs because the company goes out of business because of the owners' views then, while it is unfortunate, it is an acceptable outcome. I have no sympathy for any franchise holder. When you buy into a franchise you get in bed with the company selling the franchise "for better or for worse." Many of them may have a cause of action against CFA depending on the specifics of the agreements and the facts involved but I doubt in the end that they would collect anything.


The entire family expresses hate through its well-documented prior behavior. And when you are an officer of a company, any statements you make ARE associated with the company. You accept that when you become an officer.

I once was an officer of a public company. I could have gone to prison for expressing my "free speech rights" on certain subjects. I could also be fired if I said anything publicly that implied a view of the company or that embarrassed the company. I also had a "morals clause" in my employment contract.

Vante was right for firing its CFO for what he did because it embarrassed the company. If CFA had a responsible Board, it would have fired this Cathy idiot for what he said because it has clearly embarrassed the company and defamed it publicly. But, what do you expect from a company with a senior executive named "Bubba?"



If it is the position of a company to support a cause, then the executives talk about it. If a company chooses to support broader marriage rights, or narrowing of those rights, then that is their prerogative. But their stakeholders then can respond to it in many different ways.

As of right now, same sex marriage is legal in many jurisdictions. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act has been struck down in one circuit and is exceedingly unlikely to be upheld by SCOTUS because of the particular legal test it must meet. Recognizing that fact and getting ahead of the ball is smart management. Clinging to a view based on hatred toward people because of their sexual preference is not smart.

Perhaps there is little pushback because most of the public is open-minded and just does not really care if we check the genitals of two people who love each other before allowing them to marry. The winds are shifting rapidly in this country as more and more people are forced to think about the issue and realize they either support the idea or they just don't care. There has been an enormous swing just in the last 5 years...and even the last 1 year. The arguments against it are beginning to sound just like the arguments against interracial marriage just a few decades ago. I predict they will be gone in less than 10 years, probably much sooner.

Based on the title the post is supposed to be about CFA, not freedom of speech.

So...if ministers talk politics instead of tending to the sick and poor, they're not doing their job or doing it poorly at best? Who sets the priorities for mayor and ministers?

Shaky ground. That is an understatement. Did these government officials overstep their boundaries? Yes? Do we know that in the communities in question there are not people who do support marriage as between one man and one woman?

Dan Cathy didn’t say he hated homosexuals. He stated:

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

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Full article: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271



Wow. So you agree that people who work for CFA are being discriminated against regardless of their personal beliefs. Further, so one man makes a statement about personal beliefs and a $4 billion USD a year company should go out of business. That is very tolerant. How many employees does CFA have? Not to mention they make the best chicken sandwich and they have those delicious fries. Thankfully under the Constitution Cathy has a right to make those statements above.



CFA’s board is primarily made up of the Cathy’s. This is a private company. There are no public stockholders to my knowledge. Regarding Vane’s CFO what about some asking that the Mayor’s of those cities to step down who clearly issued discriminatory statements against CFA based on one man’s opinion?



So if an executive comes out in favor of same-sex marriage he or she is a hero. When an executive comes out saying he is in support of marriage between one woman and one man he is hateful bigot. I guess this proves that one is considered open minded according to liberals so long as they don’t disagree with the liberal agenda.



You assume that to believe in the Bible literally one must hate people who are homosexuals. That is just not the case. At least with many people. It’s a disagreement about the lifestyle.



The evidence that this is not true is the fact that Marriage is still defined as between one man and one woman in the U.S. Constitution. But you are right that things are changing. I wonder if this definition of marriage will continue to be the definition used years from now.

This is an interesting debate that might go beyond what you intended. Ministers are actually violating the law by encouraging congregants to vote a certain way or by supporting a particular political candidate. A pastor who talks too long in a sermon about Obama supporting same-sex marriage could cost his church millions of dollars and subject himself to a prison term for tax evasion if the law were enforced. I wonder why none of these "law and order" folks turn in their pastors. Or maybe they just think the laws don't apply to them.

Where?

Actually marriage is not a constitutional right. I stand (or sit) corrected. It is regulated by the states and is considered a religious sacrament as I understand it by many people. I'm sure it will be addressed by the Supreme Court at some point in the near future.

Bottom line it is not wrong or bigoted to believe America is stronger by defining marriage as between one man and one woman. It is also not wrong for homosexual American citizens to want to get as much parity as they can.

If there's one thing I wish people would understand, it is that there is a difference between a civil right (R-I-G-H-T) and a religious rite (R-I-T-E).

Yes, marriage is viewed as a sacrament by many churches. However, one doesn't need to be married in a church to be considered married by the state. One only has to go down to the court house, pay a fee, and get a marriage license. In that respect, marriage is a civil affair - one that produces many benefits to the married couple (tax advantages, the option to share health insurance benefits, life insurance/pension guarantees, etc). Legally denying the same benefits and protections to one segment of the population is discrimination.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

Eagle, I think you're a good guy personally, but it's really hard to take you seriously when you play it fast and loose with the facts. I'm not out to correct you or catch you in a false statement; I just can't understand what drives you to make untrue statements to make your point. You say that the basis for your opinions is your own research but with this last one, it's painfully apparent that you weren't actually reading the Constitution when you were making an assertion to as to what it said. Every time you do something like that it convinces me more that someone is telling this stuff to you and you're not fact-checking it yourself unless pushed by questions like mine.


Why? And who determines what the bottom line is?

I'm sure there are. Many.


He didn't need to.


Yes, I agree CFA is discriminating against its employees who do not share the same beliefs as the company's owners. This includes gay employees, divorced employees, single-mothers, and probably muslim, atheist, and jewish employees. I understand in many restaurants they are forced to pray with christians and do so out of fear of losing their jobs. And I agree that many customers are now coming into the stores and praising the employees for hating gays and the company is not allowing the employees to express their outrage or defend themselves. To a certain extent I think the company has a right to keep employees from confronting customers, but the company's overt action has created a hostile work environment. The company may have a legal obligation to repair the environment and not require employees to work until it has done so. I see that lawsuit happening soon. That $4 billion value is going to be pretty attractive to some lawyers. Dan's going to feel pretty stupid then...and his view on welfare might change when he needs food stamps.


Executives are removed by Boards or senior executives. Mayors are removed by elections or, in some cases, by impeachment. I know of no serious efforts to remove mayors in any of the cities you mentioned over this.

As for being a private company, that is true. But there are public stakeholders including the employees, the communities where there stores are located, their suppliers, creditors, and so forth. If their business suffers because people boycott them and they lay off employees, we'll be subsidizing the unemployment insurance. So, as I'm sure they taught you in one of your MBA classes, being private does not exempt a company from public obligations or isolate it from public stakeholders. That's why most private companies have independent boards by the time they reach that size.


The executive speaks on behalf of the company whether he intends to or not. Dan was speaking on behalf of CFA whether he wanted to or not. The Vante CFO's behavior and actions impacted Vante and he was therefore fired. It has nothing to do with whether he was for or against a specific issue. You might take issue with the fact that the PUBLIC has not reacted the way you'd like when there is a statement one way or the other.

Now, regarding the issue, opposing same-sex marriage means you seek to limit freedom. You want to limit the freedom of certain people to marry based upon the gender of the people they choose to love and marry. Is that incorrect? If you are in favor of allowing people of the same sex to marry then you want to expand that freedom. I always thought limiting the restrictions that government places on people and expanding freedom was on the conservative agenda.


Although I'm sure many liberals have an agenda just as many conservatives do, I am unfamiliar with exactly what is on this agenda. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

I don't form my view based on anyone's agenda. I think and decide for myself.


I make no such assumption. But based on my observations of the behavior of SOME people who oppose same-sex marriage, I have come to accept that there is more beneath the surface than simply disapproving of their lifestyle. I am sure that if you had a friend and you found out she was deeply in debt you might disapprove of that but you would not ostracize here. But if you found out she was a lesbian I think your feelings would be far stronger.



The United States Constitution does not define marriage. If you believe it is then I encourage you to read the document and cite the Article and Section for us.

You might be thinking of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA). It defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It is currently the law but is working its way through the court system. It has been struck down by at least one US Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

To be upheld it will need to pass one of three legal tests about whether there is a compelling government interest and, so far, it seems far from being able to pass even the weakest of those tests.

My wives would disagree...

Why is American stronger when marriage is defined to be between one man and one woman?

Why is it not wrong for homosexual American citizens to want to get as much parity as they can?

These sorts of controversies are what happens when you involve the government in regulating religious and/or cultural traditions.

The government shouldnt validate or invalidate a marriage, nor should it even care if you are married or not. The validation of your marriage should be entirely up to you and your family.

The law should be changed to abolish marriage as a civil/legal term, and instead institute a common sense policy defining benefits based on blood relation and/or living arrangements.

Most of the corporate world has already adjusted to societal norms. Not surprising that the federal government is one of the few holdovers, although you can probably get domestic partner benefits while working for the federal government, which makes the whole "debate" even more absurd.

And finally... lets face it. There is ZERO reason to prohibit gay marriage unless you invoke religion. And the US is not a theocracy. So lets PLEASE move on from this endless idiotic debate about gay marriage.