Chick-Fil-A and Gay Marriage: Do You Support the Chain's Stance?

Even if you disagree, do you agree the company has a right to take a stand? Will you still "eat mor chikin"?

The nationwide media storm over the anti-gay-marriage stance by the president of Chick-fil-A came home to roost in the St. Louis area last week as local stores saw record traffic and huge crowds.

Most of the visitors said they supported the stance taken by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy in the Biblical Recorder on gay marriage. Later, in an interview on the topic, Cathy said: "As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage.'"

On Wednesday, a day conservative commentators dedicated toward showing support for Chick-fil-A, crowds gathered at the and in . The chain has seven locations in the St. Louis area, including a store in Des Peres on Manchester Road and at the West County Center; one in St. Peters at the Mid Rivers Mall; one in O'Fallon; and one at St. Louis University. 

The debate hasn't entirely been civil. Someone , CA.

However, officials from the on Wednesday, dubbed “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." Opponents of the chain's stand on gay marriage planned "Same Sex Kiss" day for Friday.

Do you agree with Dan Cathy's stated position on gay marriage? Even if you don't, do you have a problem with he and his company taking a position on the subject? If you disagree, is that enough to drive you away from eating there?

RDBet August 14, 2012 at 01:25 AM
continued.. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination � Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this and what do we do about all the Red Lobsters in America? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? � Lev.24:10-16. Could't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Doug Miner August 14, 2012 at 02:34 AM
Please keep personal attacks out of this discussion.
mike k August 14, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Speaking of biblical events as it relates to modern times, do you think God gave Aids to the homosexual community as retribution to their lifestyle aka Sodom & Gomorrah in biblical times? I know one thing, I won't get Aids from eating at Chick Fil A.
Dan Johnson August 14, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Excellent! The bible is full of things no one would seriously consider today, yet a few obscure verses are used to justify ignoring the Golden Rule, which is found in every major religion as well as non religious ethical belief systems. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.
Dan Johnson August 14, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Did God give children polio for retribution? Cancer? Malaria? More straight people have HIV than gay people. It is irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsupportable to believe HIV is a punishment from God. 467 comments so far, and still no scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.
Dan Johnson August 14, 2012 at 03:56 PM
If you read the information at the top, you find according to scripture, God destroyed Sodom because they were abusive to strangers and the poor. The story was a warning against harming others needlessly, yet many use it to justify harming others needlessly. Again, rape is not love. Sodom had nothing to do with same sex relationships based on mutual love and respect.
Robert E August 14, 2012 at 05:48 PM
Mike if he did he failed again because they are still here. I'd like to offer a perspective on gay marriage. The obvious end to the battle will be: gays win right to marry. Just as blacks were freed and woman made equal. The question is when will this happen. There in lies the sticky part. As history teaches us: with every major social change comes decades of blow-back. Sorry, it's human nature. The two ways for gays to win equality are either a gradual cultural shift or sweeping legal challenges. The first takes longer but with reduced hostility. The latter is sure to stir up mass contempt, usually unfounded. I suspect the road ahead with see a mix of both strategies. Be prepared to see some awful headlines on the way.
KK August 14, 2012 at 06:22 PM
How do I opt out of this increasingly ridiculous and crazy conversation?
mike k August 14, 2012 at 07:45 PM
In 2011, the area consisting of missouri counties of st louis, st charles, franklin, warren, jefferson and lincoln plus the city of st louis has approximately 2.1 million residents split 48%male, 52%female. In the same area for 2011, there are 5,308 documented cases of HIV/AIDS, 923 female, 4,385 male. Of the 4,385 cases involving males, 3,359 cases involved male with male sex. In other words male homosexual activity accounts for >75% of all male HIV/AIDS cases in the Missouri side of the St. Louis area. Even more disturbing perhaps is that studies have shown the percentage of male homosexuals in the st louis area are only 0.5% of the population. This means of the 1,000,000 males in st louis, of the 5,000 male homosexuals, 3,359 have HIV/AIDS. Wow, talk about a dying minority!
Integr8er August 14, 2012 at 08:54 PM
Dan Johnson 10:32 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012 Dan, Did you take the same stance when many corporations donated money to deny citizens of this state the right to keep and bear arms as provided for in the constitution of the united states? I am speaking of Hallmark, and Levi’s just to name a few, in the case of Proposition B in the state of MO. Do you also take that stance on all corporate donations to PAC’s and to advertising efforts for or against any other laws?
Dan Johnson August 14, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Again, you fail to provide any scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution. Gay women are the lowest risk group for HIV. As your un-referenced quote shows, many straight women and men were infected. Yet you don't advocate denial of equal rights for those straight people infected. This fails to support you assertion of divine retribution and fails to provide any rational reason for denial of the rights granted to the straight people infected. We know marriage has a stabilizing effect on relationships. Marriage would only decrease the numbers of those infected, not increase that number. 0.5% is an extremely low guess for the number of gay men in the area. As a result of the remaining prejudice, many lie when asked about sexual orientation, especially when the study is not completely anonymous. As you provide no rational reason for treating gay men and women differently from straight men and women, the only purpose for this post can be to demonize gay people. Yet at best, this provides support for encouraging safe sex and committed relationships through marriage equality.
Dan Johnson August 14, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Integr8er. I concentrate on laws that discriminate. Prop B and most other proposed laws treat all citizens equally under the law without discrimination, whether you agree with that law or not. Most laws do not guarantee rights to some while denying those same rights to others based on irrational classifications such as sexual orientation. Chick supports laws that discriminate. They deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.
Dan Johnson August 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Robert. Hopefully the peak of the "blowback" was in the 70's and 80's, when anti-gay laws were passed as a reaction to gains made in the 50's and 60's. Court cases date back to 1924 in the US, when the first public gay rights in the US was shut down by police, for sending information through the mail. This led to the end of laws that prohibited gay rights information from being distributed by mail. The legal process toward equal rights has been going on for a long time. Marriage equality is merely the last major hurdle Ironically, much of the progress has resulted from efforts to punish gay people using the force of law. Romer v Evans was one of the big ones, along with Lawrence, both of which singled out gay people for denial of equal treatment. Now with DADT repealed, DOMA is the primary law remaining that singles out gay people for denial of equal treatment, and it has been found to be unconstitutional by several trial courts and two appellate courts. Prop 8 has also been declared unconstitutional at the trial and appellate level, and has been appealed to the supremes. Hopefully we are nearing the end of a long history of deadly prejudice and discrimination under the law. Yet the end of legal discrimination will not end prejudice. It is however, an essential ingredient toward that goal. Unfortunately it is not also a sufficient ingredient.
mike k August 15, 2012 at 02:30 AM
Do you really think I could make this stuff up? Go to www.city-data.com/St.-Louis-Missouri.html to confirm that homosexual men make up 0.5% of the households in St. Louis. Thank God myself and my family live here in the Midwest where gays are few and far between compared to places like San Francisco, West Hollywood and New York City. The remainder of the information can be obtained by going to health.mo.gov/living/healthcondiseases/.../hivaids/index.php By the way, I did some additional research and there is no Dan Johnson living in Ellisville or Ballwin. hmm, why are you on this site when you don't even live here?
Robert E August 15, 2012 at 04:41 AM
About seven of every 1,000 households in the St. Louis area are headed by same-sex couples, and about 23 percent of those households are raising children. Census data released today show for the first time at a local level how many same-sex couples are raising children. The new numbers show a jump in the number of same-sex households from a decade ago, when similar information was collected by the Census Bureau. For example, in Missouri, the number increased to 15,242 couples from 10,881 a decade ago, a 40 percent increase. "There's no question that acceptance (of gays) has increased in the last 10 years and, as a result, more people are comfortable reporting as a couple," said Gary J. Gates, a scholar with the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law focusing on sexual orientation issues. That rationale is the reason for dramatic jumps in rural areas, he said, especially when it comes to those raising children. For example, there was an increase of 42 percent in Washington County and 41 percent in St. Francois County since 2000. "It's not that gay couples are moving to rural Missouri to raise children," Gates said. "They often come from a socially conservative environment and don't come out until later in life." http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/census-shows-gay-couples-raising-children-in-st-louis-area/article_98b09746-b84b-5121-bc1f-23527869e5bf.html
William Braudis August 27, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Stick your equal rights. These people should be segregated from society. Stay in the closet and do not flaunt your genetic defect in my face. Mr. Dan Johnson, do you and your lover really feel disenfranchised ? Homo's and lesbian's are not only sinners they are abominations.
Dan Johnson August 27, 2012 at 09:47 PM
W.B. Sorry to see the information provided was not sufficient to help you overcome the irrational, scientifically unsupportable prejudice you were taught as a child. It also appears you were taught to judge and condemn rather than to follow the Golden Rule. While it is possible for you to overcome the irrational, destructive, and deadly prejudice you promote, I suspect you will refuse to accept the reality that gay people have always existed and, as recognized by every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country, are a natural minority of the population. Unfortunately, I suspect you will continue to use your misinterpretation of a few ancient verses to justify promotion of the prejudice and discrimination that only results in hate, suffering, and death, rather than promoting love as Jesus intended. I hope you will consider the information presented here and elsewhere which will show your prejudice is unsupportable as well as deadly. Join us in 2012.
William Braudis August 28, 2012 at 01:19 AM
Dan Johnson, you sure use a lot of words to say nothing. Try this : King James Version, LEVITICUS, CHAPTER 20, VERSE 13. This will tell you actually what our God thinks about Homo's and Lesbian's, this act is not a sin but rather an obamination.
William Braudis August 28, 2012 at 01:31 AM
Jean Whitney. Please do not show your lack of intelligence by writing such dumb statements, namely, " The mayor is against DISCRIMINATION, not chicken-selling. " Young lady, the mayor of Chicago is a pig and is discriminating against Mr. Cathy and job creation. A typical democrat
RDBet August 28, 2012 at 03:18 AM
Perhaps William is unaware of the precedent -outspoken raging homophobes that turn out to be latent gays. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/george-rekers-anti-gay-ac_n_565142.html http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-29/us/lkl.ted.haggard_1_ted-haggard-head-pastor-church-staff-member?_s=PM:US http://newsone.com/780135/top-5-anti-gay-ministers-accused-of-being-homosexual/
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 03:34 PM
William. Despite your reliance on demeaning terminology and personal abuse, the mayor did not stop Chick from creating jobs. He merely indicated harming others needlessly is a value neither he nor the city support.
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 03:48 PM
William. We covered Leviticus somewhere in this thread. It appears you are another cafeteria Christian, picking and choosing verses out of context to support your prejudice while ignoring others including the many that stress the Golden Rule. Leviticus was addressing the cleanliness codes and prohibitions against Pagan ritual sex. It says nothing about lesbians, and it also tells you to treat others the way you want to be treated: Leviticus 19:18: You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. And Leviticus 19:34: But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 03:50 PM
You need to consider Leviticus in context: "Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship. "Because these two verses in Leviticus have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals. The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others."
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 03:51 PM
Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?" (continued at:) http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 04:03 PM
And still no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution.
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 04:24 PM
RDBet. Good point, and good examples. The science supports this conclusion which was also observed as far back as Freud: Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA. Abstract: The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 05:05 PM
mike. The information you cite is the number of self reporting same sex couples. It does not attempt to include those LGBT people who are single, nor those who are not comfortable reporting such information to strangers. They know, as you demonstrate, there are some anti-gay people who will stalk those who speak out in favor of equal rights. So, yes, you are either making stuff up, or failing to understand the information you provide. Either way, you still fail to provide any scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution.
mike k August 28, 2012 at 07:35 PM
Wrong, I am not stalking anyone and it is a myth that homosexuals are being stalked period. I just believe homosexuality is an immoral and hedonistic life stye that among other things has led to the spread of Aids plus a weakening of this countries morals. It is however your right to live your lifestyle no matter how destructive. It is not your right to marry as Missouri voters confirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman by passing a constitutional amendment 72% to 28% in 2004. You can whine all you want, but forget homosexual marriage ever being legal in Missouri. It's never going to happen, ever. You'll have to kill us first.
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 09:12 PM
Call it what you want, but your repeated attempts to find out where I live qualify as stalking behavior. Again, you confuse lifestyle with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation does not cause AIDS. A virus known as HIV causes AIDS and anyone can catch it, independent of sexual orientation. A lifestyle that includes unprotected intercourse with multiple partners is what results in the spread of HIV, whether straight or gay. Monogamous relationships with an uninfected partner cannot spread HIV, whether straight or gay. You provide no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for treating gay people differently than straight people. Again, HIV is at best, an argument for encouraging fidelity through marriage equality. And again, equal rights were never intended to depend on popular opinion of the majority. While true marriage equality may not happen here before you are long gone, discrimination, no matter how popular, violates the spirit of equal protection under the law upon which our country was founded. “As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Sections 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Gill)
Robin Tidwell August 28, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Oh, and I didn't stalk. I clicked on your name, which leads to your Patch profile. Says "Napa" right up top.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something