There’s one not too far from our house, and it’s franchisee is a man from First Baptist Nashville so people from church go there all the time and there is often Chick Fil A food making an appearance at various First Baptist activities.
I like their food okay. My husband loves it and for awhile ate there often enough that I started to joke it should be called “Chick Fil T”. That’s what we call it at home now, jokingly, and whenever anyone says the actual name of the store it sounds weird to me. “Wait. You said it wrong. Oops. Nevermind.”
When I found out they were donating money to a few groups that stood in opposition to homosexuality I was torn. As a libertarian I firmly believe everyone, including owners of giant corporations, should do exactly as they feel led with the talents they’ve been given. Whether those talents are an excellent singing voice or pockets bulging with profit what is done is not my call. My call is whether or not I should add my paltry sum to the pile.
I decided not to. I have much respect for the Cathys in that they live their principles in the way they operate their business. I wish more churches would choose to be debt-free, frankly, and I like that they have a corporately-enforced day of rest. But there are people very close to me who are homosexuals and I don’t like the idea of money I spend being used to prop up a part of Christianity that is in direct contradiction to Christ’s mandate that we love those that persecute us.
If Chick Fil A was less selective in where they gave their money I wouldn’t mind so much. But such a large part of the Christian culture is about ganging up on The Sin Of The Moment. And I feel like Chick Fil A has decided that instead of reaching out to homosexuals with the open arms that Christ has, they’ve joined in the “let’s prove what good Christians we are by hating on this one particular “in” sin” throng. If one is operating under the paradigm that we are all sinners and fallen short of the glory of God, then picking on someone else’s particular sin is ignoring the log in your own eye.
So I don’t eat there. Or I didn’t. But now that everyone is talking about it all the time I’m craving a sandwich.
Just Another Pretty Farce 
I appreciate the idea of not wanting to support certain businesses for ethical reasons; however, practically speaking, I’ve realized it’s not possible for me to be 100% picky about where I spend my money. For instance, I don’t support the idea of caging a chicken for its entire life and fattening it up so much that it can’t stand on it’s own two legs, but I can’t afford to purchase only free range meat. I don’t support sweat shops or slave labor either, but I guarantee I’ve spend money on products produced under those conditions. In this “global economy” it’s very difficult not to inadvertently support something you don’t agree with. I guess we all have to pick our battles. I don’t go to Chick Fil A anyway, but for me, personally, that wouldn’t be enough a reason to stop going.
I run into this all the time. About 15 years ago I finally got to the point where I was throwing my hands up in the air and figuring I’d just have to do what I thought was the best stewardship of my money. When I worked with a company that contracted out to China and saw firsthand that what we consider a “sweatshop” many Chinese consider “the best job they’ve ever had and a prize to be valued” it really hit me that the issues are more nuanced than ever. So I constantly struggle with the directions of my stewardship. In this case, though, it’s entirely personal. My close relationships with homosexuals bring out my Mama Lion tendencies.
I used to eaty there 3-4 times a week, because it’s fast, cheap and close to my office. The service is great and the food is consistent. The homophobia and what it teaches our children is enough to stop me ever going again.
I’ll miss it, but I value my children more than my chicken.
Chik-Fil-A used to be my favorite fast food place, and I still laugh (affectionately) at their billboards. But I stopped patronizing them a few years ago, when I was at a game at Greer Stadium on a Sunday and was told that the people at the place that sold their sandwiches weren’t permitted to sell them on Sundays. These people were not Chik-Fil-A employees, mind you, any more than they are Budweiser employees because they serve Bud Lights. And on the one hand I was outraged that Chik-Fil-A presumes to control what other people do with its products (which, ya know, even publishers and record labels can’t do but software companies try to), and on the other hand I was even more outraged that they had moved from “we think it’s important to give our employees a day of rest” (which, like Coble, I appreciate) to “we insist that every potential customer participate in our day of rest in the ways that we prescribe.” So between outrage and outrage, I just stopped eating their stuff. And I was happy to discover that the next year there were someone else’s chicken sandwiches being sold at Greer instead. They weren’t as good, but I could get one when I wanted to.
So learning about the anti-gay thing wasn’t my last straw with them. But it would have been, if I hadn’t hit my last straw even earlier. I don’t care how the owners of businesses I patronize vote, I don’t care how they worship, any of that. But when a business owner crosses the line from “this is what I believe and do” to “I will try to force you to do as I do, using the profits I have earned from you to do so,” they tend to lose me.
I tend, like it sounds you do, to generally avoid the outright boycott (there are exceptions). For one, I think MOST boycotts are relatively ineffective. On controversial topics, for every person who avoids patronizing a business for a reason, another will make a special effort to for that same reason. I guess it keeps things interesting for the PR folks at least.
When I decide to not patron a business for a reason not directly related to a lack of satisfaction with the service or product, I tend to look at it less as a means to punish the business and more as simply knowing where I want my money to go. It’s not about them, it’s about me.
I long learned that if I ceased to do business with any company I didn’t fully agree with, I’d pretty much need to learn to be entirely self-sufficient so which businesses I make that decision on depends on the interaction of many, many factors.
The only related instance of this I’ve heard of was CFA donating food to a marriage seminar that upheld the traditional one man/one woman concept of marriage. The accusation of haters/homophobes followed simply because they provided sandwiches.
Supporting what you believe in doesn’t equate to hatred or a lack of Christian charity. If I tithe to my local church – which holds to the same standards – does that qualify as hatred?
Regarding a boycott, I’m certainly called to be an informed, diligent steward, but at some point culpability falls square in the lap of the decision makers at the particular company/institution. I disagree with a huge chunks of government spending, but I still pay my taxes.
The impetus for this current boycott was this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/jul/19/chick-fil-a-comes-out-as-anti-gay?newsfeed=true
But Chick-fil-a has been donating, not sandwiches, but cold hard cash to anti-gay groups for years. Some merely right-wing political groups that oppose gay rights as just one part of their larger agenda and some specifically anti-gay groups like Exodus International. Which is why he was directly questioned on the matter to begin with.
OK. But again, how is their support of traditional marriage automatic ‘hatred’? Simply because they disagree with you? That they hold to the notion that homosexuality is not a safe lifestyle physically and spiritually?
That they support one of the few, very specific, New Testament boundaries for sexual conduct in the gentile church?
There are ‘haters’ – no doubt. But not everyone who believes differently – and lives out their beliefs – is an enemy.
Tolerance used to mean recognizing the right of another to hold a different opinion.
I don’t question their right to hold a different opinion. I question the righteousness of going out of one’s way to cause another demonstrable harm. And yes, I think any such malice is born of hatred, necessarily.
>That they hold to the notion that homosexuality is not a safe lifestyle physically and spiritually?
How is that the same as asking government to treat us as second class citizens?
Maybe the word “hatred” is overused, but if you vote to make me count less as a person, or financially support those who do, saying how much you love me is pretty meaningless.
“But there are people very close to me who are homosexuals and I don’t like the idea of money I spend being used to prop up a part of Christianity that is in direct contradiction to Christ’s mandate that we love those that persecute us.”
This statement doesn’t click.
Holding to a definite position means there’s an inherent opposition to a contrary one, but disagreement isn’t hatred. I don’t necessarily view contrary perspectives as a threat.
I agree that homosexuality – a particular type of sexual immorality – is the latest whipping boy in evangelical circles. It’s tedious to the point of being absurd. But an exaggerated action shouldn’t prompt an equal and opposite exaggerated response. We’re all sinners who need repentance and redemption.
* I don’t question their right to hold a different opinion. I question the righteousness of going out of one’s way to cause another demonstrable harm. And yes, I think any such malice is born of hatred, necessarily *
Agreed, but holding and supporting that different opinion doesn’t constitute ‘demonstrable harm’ or deliberate malice. Acting on your convictions doesn’t make you part of a lynch mob. You can’t construct the ‘victim’s moral high-ground’ out of straw men.
On a side note: you sound eerily similar to certain evangelical friends who inform me that including a gay character in a story, or teaching a gay man in a stained glass glass, or being in a writing group with liberals/homosexuals is an indicator of compromise and carnality.
Ah well… Damned if you do – damned if you don’t.
You are completely misrepresenting what the organizations Chick-Fil-A has donated to are doing. They are NOT merely holding and supporting an opinion. They are trying to pass legislation that has devastating effects on certain families (and sadly, I can give you plenty of examples of how anti-gay legislation has cause both measurable and immeasurable harm). They are funding “therapy” that has been proven to be both ineffective and dangerous. As I was researching the timeline of certain thing during this discussion over on Facebook, I learned it’s not 100% clear depending on when certain donations happened, but it’s entirely possible that they were even funding advocacy efforts to have have gays put to death in Uganda (and even if the donations came AFTER said event, they were still funding an organization that at one point thought such activity was a good idea).
I’d be curious in what way I sound like your evangelical friends. I don’t have a problem with people holding any number of opinions and I will happily interact and engage with them on professional and/or social levels. I have a problem with people hurting other people.
I think people like Rev. Phelps are extremely offensive, but it’s equally bizarre to hear ‘Christian love’ defined as ignoring clear Biblical boundaries and ‘hatred’ as holding to them. The Christian mandate demands the balance of speaking the truth – in love.
The bottom line is whether or not a person holds to the Biblical view of sexual immorality – of which homosexuality is one type – as a sin, and whether an individual is going to take offense (i.e. ‘be hurt’) when told their choices are wrong. Of course, as free moral agents, we can respond to the Scriptures however we want. We just have to deal with the consequences.
To address your points
I’m unconvinced I’m the one misrepresenting CFA’s support. And I hardly think trolling Facebook counts as ‘research’. Statements like ‘not 100% clear, depending on when, entirely possible, in Uganda’ don’t constitute culpability in any legitimate sense.
Therapy/counseling to help an individual with issues – be it adultery, lying, materialism, various addictions – certainly isn’t “hatred” or “anti-xxxxx”. If people are convicted and want to repent from dangerous conduct, let them. Supporting Teen Challenge isn’t the same as shooting drug dealers.
Holding the traditional ‘one man/one woman’ view of marriage isn’t malice.
This conversation sounds familiar in that you’re employing blanket associations, language of animosity, guilt by proximity, and imbalanced view of Scripture. Same dynamic,other side of the argument.
I caught an episode of some reality show awhile back. I don’t recall the name, but it was basically a high-brow version of wife swap. In it a conservative woman opposed to gay rights spent some time living in a household with two gay dads and their children. At one point during a discussion (which was polite on all sides), she broke down crying and left to speak to the camera in another room. What she said that really blew my mind is “Why do they have to take it so personally?” That’s mind-blowing to me. She is seeking to destroy their lives and questions why they would take that personally. And I’ve no reason to believe she was being disingenuous, I believe she genuinely couldn’t understand why people would be upset because to her it was all some political game. She couldn’t even comprehend that they stood to lose everything dear to them.
I just find it remarkable, because these are generally the same people who claim a right to shoot someone dead on the spot for threatening their families, but when they do that exact same thing to another, it becomes “well, why do you have to take it so personal??”
You are repeatedly diminishing the real harm anti-gay legislation causes. I can’t tell if it’s out of ignorance or malice. I’m not talking about people being “offended.” I’m talking about a disabled veteran losing everything he owned because, without legal marriage, when the man he’d spent his life with for decades finally passed, the partner’s estranged family had more legal relation to the deceased than did the person he’d loved, allowing them to successfully challenge the will taking the home the two men had shared, all shared assets, and then suing the surviving partner for court costs wiping out his life savings.
I’m talking about the immigrant who was deported when his visa expired despite having been legally married in the state of MA for 7 years to his American husband (who he’d been in a relationship with for 19 years) was seen as a legal stranger to him in the eyes of the federal government under DOMA. The American citizen, a dying man, being forced to choose between moving back to Australia with his husband, losing his health insurance and with it his life-prolonging drugs in the process, or living out his final days here without the love of his life.
I’m talking about this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM
My research didn’t consist of “trolling facebook.” I researched what I had to say before commenting on Facebook so that my comment would be educated and informed. The only thing that’s not 100% clear about CFA’s Exodus International donations is whether they occurred before or after their PR department decided to make apologize for their role in the Ugandan “Kill the Gays” bill (as it was popularly known before you accuse me of using “language of animosity”). The apology came in March 2010, whereas the only date I could find for the donation was the broader 2010. So it’s unclear if they supported the organization when they agreed gays should be put to death or after they changed their mind.
Therapy/counseling is supposed to help individuals. Even if one believes (against all evidence) that sexual orientation can be changed, that does not mean one need support specific therapies which have been conclusively proven to be both ineffective and dangerous. Holding the (not so) “traditional” ‘one man/one woman’ view of marriage isn’t malice, but trying to harm people who disagree is.
You’ve thrown several merit-less accusations at me. I’m not employing blanket associations or guilt by proximity. There is written record of the millions of dollars that Chick-fil-a has donated to these groups. I’m not making the association between them. They are choosing to do so themselves.
I don’t believe I’ve used any “language of animosity.” What specifically did you find unfairly malicious? I’ve actually ignored your language of animosity (really? loving a person with the same genitalia is “dangerous?”). I’ve been rather intentionally ignoring your choice of provocative language.
I haven’t even addressed your scripture. I’ve no interest in debating you on it because it’s irrelevant to the conversation. You can interpret whatever scripture you believe in in whatever fashion you choose to and still choose not to go out of your way to harm other human beings. Your accusation of “imbalanced view of scripture” falls flat when I’ve not so much as mentioned scripture nor in any way engaged you on your views of it. I have simply ignored your references to scripture as irrelevant to whether or not it is righteous to seek to harm others.
As others have said, I find it impossible to keep up on companies and their pet projects, so I don’t tend to boycot–except Wal Mart. Mostly, I refuse to shop at Wal Mart, which is really difficult in a small, isolated town. As far as the chicken place, the closest one is 80 miles away, and the peanut oil they fry in causes my son’s face to swell like a balloon.
Scripture is entirely relevant in a conversation about Christian response to individuals, character and conduct, in this case the owners of Chik-Fil-A. Now I don’t know to what – if any – degree you subscribe to Biblical authority, but it’s disingenuous to demand standards of biblical love while ignoring standards of biblical morality. In fact, I think the root of the entire issue here is the deeper question of a Holy God reaching into our world to redeem people from the temporal and eternal consequences of their own radical selfishness and rebellion.
Is it righteous to harm others?
Of course not, but it’s entirely legitimate to act on your conscience and convictions. You seem to affirm homosexuals’ right to do that, but when Christians act on their beliefs, they’re viewed as ‘wrong’ and considered bigots. There’s animosity in the way you define those who maintain a contrary position. All opposition is ‘anti-gay’, ‘haters/homophobes’ and inherently ignorant and malicious. Yet I’ve had homosexuals scream that they want to kill me and take my children, and I still refuse to throw around epithets like ‘fags’ or ‘queers’. My biological father was a bisexual and a heroin addict, who while employed as a Parole Officer abandoned my mother and I for a 14-year old boy in his charge. There’s a strong possibility he molested me. Yet even with that personal history, it would be inappropriate of me to assume all homosexuals were similar.
Liberty extends both ways, and it’s within everyone’s rights to support and vote for those initiatives they agree with. An issue this intimate, people can’t help but take it personal. Some measure of conflict is inevitable. That doesn’t mean however that all action by the opposition automatically translates to slander and degrading people.
Regarding harm or suffering; as a disabled person, I’ve faced inequities for as long as I can remember. Some of them were deliberate, most merely the consequence of living in a dysfunctional, unfair world. Anguish does not grant me the right to malign physically-able people or assume all my problems are the result of their malice or insensitivity.
My understanding of Scripture is that we all need to recognize our deep brokenness, acknowledge the ultimate authority of our Creator, then turn away from the particular symptoms – whatever they may be – to experience genuine forgiveness and healing. That’s what redemption is all about. Conversion isn’t agreeing to doctrinal positions; it’s a supernatural work in the innermost being. I’ve met plenty of former liars, drinkers, adulterers, addicts, – and yes, homosexuals – in church over the last 26 years. Each of them will tell you however imperfect they are, God changed them and those inclinations.
At the end of the day, I recognize that holding to a biblical worldview and making an effort – however clumsy – to live that out is going to be considered an indictment by some who choose other paths and perspectives, especially in an areas where we’re diametrically opposed. That does not mean I hold them in contempt or consider them second class citizens or a sub-specie of human being.
I think we’re at an impasse. Over the course of this discussion you have used combative and insulting language. You have put words in my mouth on at least two separate occasions. You are desperately trying to control the conversation and turn it to anything but the demonstrable, measurable harm anti-gay legislation causes. I refuse to address the strawmen you are constructing. I refuse to reduce life-destroying actions to mere “difference of opinion.” I’m no longer able to give you the benefit of the doubt that you merely misunderstand the issues at play here. If you seek to harm other people, you are hateful. If you seek to harm other people because they are different than you, you are a bigot. I suspect if you felt that was refutable, you’d have already done so instead of continually attempting to change the subject, so I believe we are finished here.
Dolphin, we both knew we weren’t going to agree even before the conversation started.
I should have remained more focused. I apologize if I rambled or insulted you.
I maintain it is not automatic bigotry or ignorance for anyone on either side of the issue to act on conscience and conviction; that hatred is not intrinsic to the debate, but is added on both sides by choice and immaturity.
That said, I also recognize that in holding to one specific position or the other – especially in something this personal – someone on the contrary side is going to be offended or get hurt. It is an inevitable and regrettable consequence of life.
However, to insist the Cathys – or those who support a traditional view of marriage – are inherently malicious, wrong, or responsible for the anguish and disparities suffered by homosexuals is as absurd as Chik-Fil-A suing Katherine for lost revenue because of her decision to stop eating there. It simply doesn’t hold water.
Yes, we do disagree, but that does not make me a hater, or bigot, or ignorant of the issue. Despite your last response, I did not, nor do I now, automatically subscribe those traits to you.
I’m responding only because I think you’re analogy may give me insight into your viewpoint. Since you adamantly refuse to address the topic directly, let’s use your analogy. One quibble; assigning responsibility for the effects of anti-gay legislation to the people who pass it isn’t comparable to CFA suing Kat for lost revenue when she makes the decision not to eat there; however it’s absolutely comparable to assigning responsibility to her for the lost revenue that came as a direct result of her decision. I agree with this analogy completely and with that one little tweak, I think it holds water just fine. I think, in this analogy, Kat is absolutely responsible for her own decision and the results of it and those results are likely in fact the exact reason she made the decision. So I guess my question to you is, who do you feel is responsible for Kat’s decision and the results of it? Who holds the responsibility for an individual’s actions if not the individual themselves?
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
The original post related K’s decision to stop frequenting Chik Fil A because of the owners’ vocal and financial support of traditional marriage. I thought I made it clear that I uphold both Kat and the Cathys’ right to act according to their conscience. Where we disagree is whether the Cathys’ support qualifies as malicious intent/discrimination, and the extent to which they are the responsible for anguish/suffering on the part of those who live contrary lifestyle.
The heart of the debate and the source of our impasse is whether an individual holds homosexuality to be normal behavior or deviant. As the positions are in opposition, a measure of friction is inevitable. Vitriol is not. Your reasons for disagreeing with the Cathys’ stance are related but separate to this thread; suffice it to say they are acting consistent with their worldview, and that is something we both agree is within their right. In fact, people on both sides are free to introduce and support legislation in-line with their perspectives, regardless of our feelings.
I wholly agree individuals bear responsibility for their actions. I also recognize certain areas of the civil/legal establishment favor traditional marriage arrangements, and that a large segment of our society upholds it as the exclusive marital union. So far as I’m aware, the Cathys are not dehumanizing, imprisoning, or even refusing service to anyone, but simply oppose efforts to legitimize what they believe is aberrant and ultimately harmful behavior.
In line with taking individual responsibility, I submit that rather than the result of harmful intent, much of the anguish/suffering in this case is an indirect consequence of people’s lifestyle decisions. For homosexuals to cast blame, malign, or suggest that the Cathys are culpable represents a failure to accept responsibility, which is in my mind equivocal to seeking redress for lost revenue. Both parties have to accept the consequences, along with the right of others to believe and act otherwise.
As you noted, this conversation is at a definite standstill, and out of respect , I’ll refrain from further comment. Good Luck.
The heart of the debate and the source of our impasse is whether an individual holds homosexuality to be normal behavior or deviant.
This is not the heart of the debate nor the source of or impasse. The heart of the debate is whether it is inherently hateful to wish harm on other people. There are many things I believe to be wrong but I do not attempt to pass legislation to harm those who disagree with me about them.
In fact, people on both sides are free to introduce and support legislation in-line with their perspectives, regardless of our feelings.
Agreed. That freedom does not however shield them from criticism for such actions.
In line with taking individual responsibility, I submit that rather than the result of harmful intent, much of the anguish/suffering in this case is an indirect consequence of people’s lifestyle decisions.
If I’m reading you correctly, you are saying that it’s gay people’s fault people like Cathy are harming them by virtue of the fact that they are gay. This is not unlike saying it’s a rape victim’s fault for getting raped because her skirt was too short or she shouldn’t have been walking in the park after dark.
>So far as I’m aware, the Cathys are not dehumanizing […], but simply oppose efforts to legitimize what they believe is aberrant and ultimately harmful behavior.
Yeah, see dolphin, they just believe we’re aberrations who are harmful to society. Glad they’re not dehumanizing us, right?
Sigh. And slave owners weren’t racist, they knew those poor inferior races needed good white Christians to take care of them!
>However, to insist the Cathys – or those who support a traditional view of marriage – are inherently malicious, wrong, or responsible for the anguish and disparities suffered by homosexuals
Just want to make sure I understand your hypothesis: you believe that giving money and support to those who inflict anguish and disparities on a group of people doesn’t make you responsible for the infliction of said anguish and disparities?
Seriously?
See above. Thanks
Hello there, just changed into aware of your blog thru Google, and found that it is really informative. I’m going to watch out for brussels. I will be grateful should you proceed this in future. A lot of other people might be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!
Sheet Music for Viola for the Win!
Criticism is perfectly acceptable. However, the tone of the debate is past simple criticism.
I’m not sure how many other ways I can explain this: in a biblical worldview, sexual immorality – which includes homosexuality – is symptomatic of a selfish, rebellious nature that is contrary not merely to God’s authority, but his being. It is held to be a dangerous lifestyle both spiritually and physically, with harmful consequences beyond the individual practitioner.
That is why the de facto heart of the debate is indeed ones’ view of such conduct. To a Christian, homosexual behavior is harmful. Legitimizing it compounds its harmful effects on individuals and society. Our society grants individuals the freedom to practice that lifestyle. It also grants the freedom to disagree, and support legislation limiting what is perceived to be detrimental and dangerous.
I’m not excusing rape/mugging/assault, but there’s tons of places I’m scared to go after certain hours, regardless of my apparel or gender. I bet you know some too. Common sense says not to stick your hand in the middle of a dog fight. It’s not unreasonable to expect people to employ a measure of prudence or take some measure of responsibility for situational awareness surrounding their conduct.
No crime is committed in supporting traditional marriage legislation. The more appropriate analogy in my mind is the drunk driver blaming alcohol for their crash, or saying how dare other people be on the road when they decided to have a few, speed, weave and ignore stop lights.
Criticism is perfectly acceptable. However, the tone of the debate is past simple criticism.
Then you’re beginning to understand why people’s viewpoint can be acceptable (if wrong), but the way that use that viewpoint can be hateful.
I’m not sure how many other ways I can explain this
You don’t have to explain it. I understood you the first time. You think it’s wrong to be gay. You think I am “detrimental and dangerous.” Yet you bristle at the notion that you hate me. Why? I very openly hate that which is “detrimental and dangerous.” I think it’s only rational to do so.
I’m not excusing rape/mugging/assault, but
I think there are no three letters in the English language that speak louder than the word “but.”
No crime is committed in supporting traditional marriage legislation.
No legislation has been proposed to support “traditional” marriage (a meaningless term to begin with since marriage tradition is epically varied). The legislation that is being discussed is legislation that opposes marriage for same-sex individuals, opposes non-discrimination for gay people, supports the bullying of gay youth, and indeed, in some cases, stands in opposition to allowing gay people to continue to live.
Your drunk driver analogy doesn’t make any sense at all, but your second analogy is spot on. What you describe is exactly what you’re doing here. It echoes the analogy I made in the previous comment. You are victim-blaming.