First: Was Hate behind Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/176955456700 ... iation-day

Was this about Freedom of Speech or the issue of Marriage? Was this an issue of hate towards a particular group of people or an issue of people having the right to speak their minds?

Disclaimer: Both of the people on in this interview are not Christians - one a Muslim the other is a Jew.

Wasn't President Obama for marriage as defined to be between a man and a woman just 6 months ago?

There were large numbers of supporters that showed up to Chick-Fil-A on August 1st. From an inside source of a manager who works at CFA I know the store he worked at more than quadrupled their sales.

Second: What is your take on the four mayors, Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C. and San Francisco, who spoke out against Chick-Fil-A because of CFA's Executive Dan Cathy personal belief statements?

Jeez...there goes that better judgement of mine again...



Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the idiots who own CF hate gays and many other groups. What they do/did was about hate. They have the right to express their views but they do not have the right to violate employment law. And the public has the right to drive them out of town or completely out of business.



I don't know but I'll take your word for it that he was. But perhaps he has allowed his mind to be opened a little. More likely though he has seen the sociopolitical winds in this country shifting and has realized his new position is more in line with the new direction.


You live in the south. Where I live the "kiss-in" was better attended. The local CF restaurants have seen their sales plummet in the last couple of weeks.


I think they did the right thing. No community should encourage the presence of a hate group. The CEO hates gays and has made that clear through his statements and actions. He has fired women because they choose to work. He has exhibited many other behaviors that are indicative of hate groups. He has openly stated that he will discriminate against people based on their sexual preference and/or the gender of their spouse. The mayor of Boston simply expressed his towns opposition to discrimination. It is no different than speaking out against the klan or neo-nazis. I would not want those groups in my community either.

I believe President Obama has stated that his view on the issue has been evolving over time. That seems reasonable to me. At least he is open to changing his position when he realizes he was wrong. While I'm sure politics had a major part in it, I am not too concerned since he arrived at the correct conclusion.

+1

I really wonder when it became so horrible for a politician to change their position on a particular issue. Things evolve over time as new information becomes available, situations change, and public opinion shifts. If politicians are supposed to be representing us, why is it wrong to change their position if ours changes? And I'm not referring just to this issue or a particular candidate.

No evidence has been presented to suggest that Chick-fil-A discriminates against gay or lesbian customers or employees. There is nothing to suggest that the company has broken the law in any way. Governments have a responsibility to not discriminate against businesses on the basis of an individual’s personal beliefs, just as restaurant chains cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of personal beliefs (or sexual orientation).

Menino wrote, “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail” which is ironic in itself because is not the Mayor of Boston showing discrimination against Cathy and Chick-fil-A wanting to open up a store in Boston?

Boston Mayor Menino announced on July 26, 2012 that he will not seek punitive action against Chick-fil-A. I find that a bit humurous.

Interesting Fact:

The ACLU, while a strong supporter for same-sex marriage, came out and said refusing to let a business open based on something someone said is discrimination, clearly against the Constitution.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination. What the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words.”

The ACLU adds that it "strongly supports" same-sex marriage, "but that's not the point here, says Schwartz. The point is if you start down the slippery slope of blocking someone based on being against something, a city or government could also shut out a business for being in support of something."

Question: So I suppose that gives government in the southern states for example to ban Target or JCPenney (both companies I enjoy shopping at btw) for expanding for their pro-homosexual stances?

Interesting as well:

Vante fired an employee recently who harassed an employee of Chick-Fil-A, recorded himself harassing the same employee, and posted it on the Internet. How smart is that?

From the Vante's Company’s website...

“Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-Fil-A,” reads a Aug. 2 company statement.

“Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company,” the release from Vante, a biotech company based in Tucson, Ariz., continues.

Ironic that Mr. Smith is part of the so called 1%? I think so.

Bottom line: Government officials do not have the right to discriminate against a business based on an individual’s opinion.

Maybe you are just more open-minded than you care to admit. A little education will do that to you.

I think it is illegal and unconstitutional to ban a business from opening in your town based solely on the political views expressed by the company/owner/etc...

If the situation were that Chick-Fil-A were donating to pro-choice groups and because of that the city of Topeka, KS, banned them from the city limits I think everyone would jumping all over the city.

Government should not be punishing people/companies for their words, no matter how stupid those words might be. Freedom of speech was meant for exactly this situation, and the mayors of those four cities embarassed themselves and their cities with their blatant over-reaction. Any ban would be overturned in about 0.01 seconds by any court with any integrity at all.

All that being said, its more than a little ridiculous that people put so much effort into preventing gays from marrying one-another.

The public does have a right to vote with their pocket books. Government officials cannot discriminate against a company based an individual’s opinion. This was not about hate. It was about being able to express one’s views as protected under the first amendment.



That is interesting. So people who work at Chick-Fil-A are suffering the potential loss of their jobs regardless of their own personal beliefs. Many of the CFA stores are owned as franchises. People really are not hurting Cathy & the owners (private company remember) but the 100 or so workers per store and small business owners at each of those locations. The owner of the CFA in Nashua in New Hampshire on August 1st, 2012 for example came out in support of the Pride Festival.



Really? The right thing? First of all Dan Cathy is the COO and President of CFA. Second Dan spoke of his own values and affirmed his belief that Biblical marriage is between one man and one woman. Third, what you’re saying is the Mayors of the respective cities in the above post should discriminate against a company with $4 billion USD in yearly sales because of the opinion of one man? Wow. That is very tolerant. I guess that’s what liberal ideology is about – we are tolerant as long as you don’t disagree with us. Perhaps I misunderstood. I find it funny how when people (yes even leaders of large corporations) come out in support of same sex marriage there is little push back. Lol.

By the way, yes under the Constitution we are allowed our differring opinions on the matter.

Edit: to correct formatting.

This is so true Savarel! I find it humorous that people in the media have jumped on this band wagon. We ask a Conservative Christian business man what he thinks and somehow we’re surprised by his response? But maybe Dan Cathy is entitled to his own opinion. What is next?



I agree. Guess how many Mayors are actually following through with their statements of keeping CFA out of their respective cities? Oh and by the way Chicago has one of the worst records when it comes to crime control. It's safer to live in Mexico that Chicago (more deaths per capita) no offense to residents of that city. Guess someone is trying to reduce some of the scrutiny of his citie's issues.

I actually have shopped there for years - before the controversy over homosexuality. JCPenney not as much lately but that is really due to the low quality and lack of variety.

I believe that the turning point was when George HW Bush released a statement saying:
This was after he'd pledged not to raise taxes in the 1988 GOP convention. His own party vilified him for breaking the pledge and he lost his bid for re-election in 1992.

Not sure but I believe this qualifies as chasing a tangent. Let's stay on topic please

Tangent alert. How did crime control enter into this conversation? So you're seeking to attack the credibility of the mayor of Chicago by talking about the crime rate? Just what is the connection?

You're right. I chased after the tangent you created about Obama changing his mind.

The connection is the Mayor fo Chicago has other important issues to deal with like fighting crime in his city. Instead, he seeks to limit another CFA store with 100 or so jobs being built in his city. This was simply a political move to take the lime light off of the fact that he isn't doing his job. Well, if he is doing his job he's doing it poorly at best.