Chick-Fil-A lays it on the line: They don't like gay couples

So comparing the people who own Chick-fil-a to Nazis and the KKK isn't really THAT big of a stretch. Take out the murder and open militantism and you're pretty close.

I have avoided this debate for any number of reasons but I can't get past this. No matter where you are on this issue I do not see how it compares AT ALL to killing of 6 million people. I get this is a touchy subject, but I'm not sure anything compares to what the Nazis did, especially how one business chooses to express its political/religious beliefs I disagree with Chris completely. It is THAT big of a stretch. Can't believe no one else had called this statement out.

well Kris youre a bigger man than me...... i too cannot get past that but couldnt bring myself to respond to it. I too choose to stay out of this debate/discussion but as you stated it is THAT big of a stretch.

i was so surprised with the statement that it spurred my husband and older daughters having a discussion about this a little while ago. A business that is expressing their choice/beliefs is extremely, extremely different than the Holocaust.

i could care less of what chick-fil-a beliefs are.
or any other major business. heck, i'm sure their are businesses out there who are against certain religions and races.
i go for the food and not what their beliefs are.

In other words, "F*** caring enough to try to make the world a better place?"

From Chick-Fil-A's perspective, that's probably what they believe they ARE doing...nevertheless, when companies like CFA become inolved in socio-political issues such as this, they should expect some blow-back from the public...but they're a privately-held company, and if they choose to plow some of their profits into creating organizations like the WinShape Foundation, they can do it...and we can say we don't support their position by refusing to patronize their restaurants...besides, the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, and over time same-sex marriage will likely be accepted by more and more states...eventually, Mr. Cathy and CFA will simply find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Steve H, I wasn't going the hate route, you'll have to see someone else's reply for that angle, I just cautioned against the "but they have good intentions/believe what they are doing is right" defense, as it can be very shaky ground and why I chose the comparison by analogy of other groups who believed themselves to be doing what was right and in the best interest of society. Sadly, the tangential discussion took the ball and ran with your false cause, though, and now we are comparing chicken sandwiches to gas chambers.

I'm all for an open discussion.

Ultimately society will rule on this matter and Chick-fil-A will bear the consequences of their public stance on gay marriage, be they for good or ill.

As for them trying to run their business on the principles they feel are important, that is a much muddier issue. What if the principles that are important to a business are non-smoking or right-handedness or blue eyes. Your general thesis looks solid, but there are plenty of other varied interests looking to blur the notion of what is defined by "principles." This is where a society must determine what is the difference between infringing on the rights of the individual and the rights of the business. Ugly, ugly territory if you ask me.

Steve H,Sadly, the tangential discussion took the ball and ran with your false cause, though, and now we are comparing chicken sandwiches to gas chambers.

Don't blame me. I was only asking how far you analogy went. Instead of assuming what you said, I was trying to be fair.

I'm all for an open discussion.

Me too.

Ultimately society will rule on this matter and Chick-fil-A will bear the consequences of their public stance on gay marriage, be they for good or ill.

From my perspective, it's not for society to judge. People should be free to follow their own conscience, if they are not harming someone else.

As for them trying to run their business on the principles they feel are important, that is a much muddier issue. What if the principles that are important to a business are non-smoking or right-handedness or blue eyes. Your general thesis looks solid, but there are plenty of other varied interests looking to blur the notion of what is defined by "principles." This is where a society must determine what is the difference between infringing on the rights of the individual and the rights of the business. Ugly, ugly territory if you ask me.

As long as they are not resorting to violence to spread their philosophy or to undermine others equal and inalienable rights, then I don't understand what the problem is. Perhaps you could replace the Nazis, the KKK, and the slave owners in your analogy with some other groups who don't use violence.

This is what I don't understand. Folks say they can't tolerate Christians because of their doctrine which may condemn them to hell, based on God's judgement. But, if you don't believe in their doctrine, then what's the problem? It's just words. As long as they aren't planning on helping to enforce God's will, then what's the worse that could happen to the heathens like me?

So comparing the people who own Chick-fil-a to Nazis and the KKK isn't really THAT big of a stretch. Take out the murder and open militantism and you're pretty close.

I have avoided this debate for any number of reasons but I can't get past this. No matter where you are on this issue I do not see how it compares AT ALL to killing of 6 million people. I get this is a touchy subject, but I'm not sure anything compares to what the Nazis did, especially how one business chooses to express its political/religious beliefs I disagree with Chris completely. It is THAT big of a stretch. Can't believe no one else had called this statement out.

well Kris youre a bigger man than me...... i too cannot get past that but couldnt bring myself to respond to it. I too choose to stay out of this debate/discussion but as you stated it is THAT big of a stretch.

i was so surprised with the statement that it spurred my husband and older daughters having a discussion about this a little while ago. A business that is expressing their choice/beliefs is extremely, extremely different than the Holocaust.

This is why people shouldn't bring the Holocaust into debates. People have such passionate feelings about it that they can't see the reasonable correlation to the point being made.

The Nazis and the Clan were brought up to illustrate the point that a message of hate left unchecked can lead to disasterous results. People turned their heads to the horrors of the holocaust just as they turn a blind eye to the descrimination of homosexuals. Yes one example is much much more extreme than the other. But no one was trying to compare the crimes, just the way in which the intolerance is/was perpetuated.

Everyone is entitled to their personal views, businesses included. But when you use your national platform to try and exert influence on an issue that relates in no way to the product you are selling, you open yourself up to be tried in the court of public opinion.

[Robin Garr]

Folks say they can't tolerate Christians because of their doctrine which may condemn them to hell, based on God's judgement.

I'm sure you understand that not all Christians follow this particular theology. In fact, few mainline Christians do. As long as we're talking about painting with a broad brush.

What's often lost in all this is that chains like Chick Feelay are so very tacky. Use Occam's convenient razor, and actually the only reason to avoid them is the tacky factor. The rest, just window dressing, or Ranch dressing -- something like that.

Folks say they can't tolerate Christians because of their doctrine which may condemn them to hell, based on God's judgement.

I'm sure you understand that not all Christians follow this particular theology. In fact, few mainline Christians do. As long as we're talking about painting with a broad brush.

Clarifications are always welcome!

Everyone is entitled to their personal views, businesses included. But when you use your national platform to try and exert influence on an issue that relates in no way to the product you are selling, you open yourself up to be tried in the court of public opinion.

Who says the the product they sell isn't related to their philosophy? They are trying to incorporate their beliefs into every aspect of their lives. To them, everything is related. It's inseparable.

If this were a chicken chain that donated to LBGT causes, folks here would be applauding them. I don't think the content of their nonviolent message should change how they are treated. Everyone should have the right, and the opportunity, to explore their philosophies and live their ideals.

Of course as you say, Chic-Fil-A's public philosophy is subject to public criticism. There's nothing wrong with that. I do object to them being ridiculed as hate mongers. There should be room in America for them, along with everyone else.

Of course as you say, Chic-Fil-A's public philosophy is subject to public criticism. There's nothing wrong with that. I do object to them being ridiculed as hate mongers. There should be room in America for them, along with everyone else.

When you give money to groups ACTIVELY trying to DENY rights to people because of how they were born then, yes you're a hatemonger.

Of course as you say, Chic-Fil-A's public philosophy is subject to public criticism. There's nothing wrong with that. I do object to them being ridiculed as hate mongers. There should be room in America for them, along with everyone else.

When you give money to groups ACTIVELY trying to DENY rights to people because of how they were born then, yes you're a hatemonger.

Is it also hate mongering to force Catholic hospitals either to go out of business or perform abortions in violation of their deepest principles?

Because a medical procedure is exactly the same, keep building that straw man.

Can't count the number of times I've wanted to hit the reply button. I'm following along in the background. Staying entertained.

Must keep focused.

If this conversation is still going strong on Thursday, I will happily jump back in. If not, I think I'll go on just fine, for it will surely resurface in +/- 3 months.

I will say I agree with Steve H on one of his points. And I think this agreement is the very basis for everything else we disagree on.

Of course as you say, Chic-Fil-A's public philosophy is subject to public criticism. There's nothing wrong with that. I do object to them being ridiculed as hate mongers. There should be room in America for them, along with everyone else.

When you give money to groups ACTIVELY trying to DENY rights to people because of how they were born then, yes you're a hatemonger.

Is it also hate mongering to force Catholic hospitals either to go out of business or perform abortions in violation of their deepest principles?

if you're speaking of the pending merger between university, jewish and c.h.i., you're grossly mis-informed. abortions are not performed at university or jewish.

if you're speaking of the pending merger between university, jewish and c.h.i., you're grossly mis-informed. abortions are not performed at university or jewish.

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to this.