After seeing some highly inflammatory posts on Facebook about Chick-fil-A, I had to look into the issue for myself to see what was REALLY going on. It seems Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-fil-A did a radio interview and a print interview which was published the same day the radio interview aired, and then the earth fell off its axis (that’s hyperbole for those who don’t get it).
Print article from June 16, 2012
Print article from June 19, 2012
Here’s what Dan Cathy DIDN’T say:
- We don’t serve gays.
- Faggots need not apply.
- God hates queers.
- Destroy all homos.
Here’s what he did say:
- 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.
- [I]ts tradition is ‘to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.’ [sounds like tolerance to me!]
- “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,’” Cathy said on “The Ken Coleman Show.” “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”
If you don’t see the difference between the two, let me present an analogy.
I have diabetes. My doctor told me processed, sugar-laden foods are bad for me. Therefore, I am a firm believer in a healthy, whole food diet. I will not eat processed foods. Anyone who eats processed foods is poisoning their body.
If you extrapolate from the above statement that I think people that eat Cheetos are bad people and should burn in hell…you are engaging in word play (or you have a reading comprehension problem at best).
Being pro-Biblical marriage does not make a person anti-gay. In fact, God calls on all believers to show love to everyone. No where did Dan Cathy say anything negative about gay people.
So what about tolerance? The word “tolerance” is being tossed around today by people that clearly don’t understand its meaning. Dictionary.com defines tolerance as:
- a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
- a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
- interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
If those calling for a boycott were truly tolerant, they would accept that Christians who truly follow the word of God cannot, in good conscience, approve of same-sex marriage. Agree to disagree. Simple as that. And I know there are gays that exhibit this kind of tolerance. I also know there are people who wear the moniker “Christian” and espouse hate (Westboro “Baptists” anyone?). But that is not the case here. Dan Cathy has essentially said, “God is my boss and I trust my boss and I think it’s a bad idea for society to go against my boss.” I agree with all of that.
Now, to any and all of my gay friends that read this: I love you. I love you as much today as I did when we would hang out – when yes, I was being every bit as debaucherous as you, if not more. I am not that person anymore. But I still love you and not just because God told me to.
1 Corinthians 5:9-10, 12-13 (ESV)
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
(Emphasis mine.)
A fair reading of the situation.
There is a part of our world today that thinks that if you believe differently than they do, then you MUST be their enemy. Largely this attitude is found on the Left, …but that’s not always the case. It is an unfortunate fact that common civility — where two people could have discourse, agree or not, and no one thought a thing about it — is simply becoming more rare.
Again, a nice treatment of the topic. Very glad I saw it!
Thanks!
You’re quite welcome, kerryy.
I forwarded the link to your post to my co-blogger, and she re-blogged you over at our site today.
Again, a very worthy post.
Many thanks.
Wow! Thanks for such a great post. It is a shame that the modern definition of tolerance is–do not disagree or say you believe something different.
I agree – and thanks!
Reblogged this on Two Heads are Better Than One and commented:
I wrote the previous post in haste last night. It says more or less what I wanted to say, but I felt there was more. Turns out, this blog from The Braunschweiger Express says EXACTLY what i would have liked to have written. I hope you’ll read all of it (it’s not any longer than mine was). Thanks!
[...] So Much for Tolerance Posted by godsbooklover under Uncategorized Leave a Comment Reblogged from The Braunschweiger Express: [...]
Why can’t they tolerate us; we who believe in God and try to live his commandments? All they do is cut us to shreds.
It seems tolerance is only supposed to go one way these days. Thanks for reading!
Well written post. It seems that the word “tolerance” is another word whose meaning has been altered to suit a special interest group. Pity. God bless Dan Cathy and God bless you for writing this.
Thank you so much!
Thanks to everyone for the comments and likes. I was so frustrated by this story that I felt I had to vent somewhere. Now I’m overwhelmed to find so many people have read this particular posting and that I have comments from people that I don’t actually know!
One more thing, kerryy: we started following your blog today.
Would you mind if I included you on our Blogroll, as well?
I wouldn’t mind at all, but as you may have noticed, I’m not a very regular poster.
Well obviously, you should post more often, then!
Regardless, what I’ve seen here (and I read through some of your other posts, as well) should be seen by more folks.
We’ll be adding you today.
“Being pro-Biblical marriage does not make a person anti-gay. In fact, God calls on all believers to show love to everyone.”
While the above statement may be true in that being pro-Biblical does not make a person anti-gay, it is also true that by denying individuals to live their lives in a way that brings them happiness, denies them the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
By sanctioning this rejection of one’s right to marry another of their choosing through the law is to contradict the Constitution which is why states fight to define “marriage” instead of codifying or making such marriages illegal.
To do so based upon religious grounds would be to sanction religion over secularism and to imbalance the rule of law and equal justice for all to only those of faith by purposely blanking out that science indicates that homosexuality is genetic in origin and the only choice afforded these people is to deny their nature in sacrifice to the aesthetics of the majority or to live a life despised by both the society and the law.
This is another of many political examples of wanting your cake and eating it too. Another would be the declaration that all men are created equal and then excluding blacks, women, native Americans and Chinese from that definition. The founders did so because it was expedient and essential in order to hold support for the revolution as opposed to splitting the nation in its infancy as the nation was later split over slavery.
Either we believe in full liberty for all or we are hypocrites when we claim to support the American dream as promised by both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. If you believe keeping gays from marrying is right; then, you would most likely have been among those who would have looked the other way when the discussion was the inequality of blacks due to the inferior nature of their humanity.
In other words, you would be able to do great things, but that would still not make you a great person, but a rather diminished one when history looks back you.
Accepting gay men and women have the right to marriage and otherwise mainstream interactions within society is not and acceptance of the gay lifestyle, but it is acceptance in the belief that all men are created equal and none shall trample the rights of others in preference to their own without penalty under the law. And if the law will not stand in assurance of individual liberty for all, then what good is it?
To the main point of your article: the cities, the mayors, and those others that would picket or deny entry of this food chain entry into their city is just as wrong and as discriminatory as banning gays from the restaurant would be. Of course gays are not being banned from proper, polite and dignified service. On balance, his acceptance of them as patron is more respectful of individual rights than the behavior of those who would attempt to ban the restaurant from a city or town. But this is what happens when extremists attempt to use the Constitution as their own political playground as the populace divides and stands intractably in opposition of the fundamental philosophy that all men are equal and we all are made smaller because of such conduct
I appreciate your well thought out and well-worded opinion. However, I believe your comment (I’m treating both as one) applies to an aspect I did not address – Constitutionality. I agree with you that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states (off-topic, but for the same reason I believe abortion should be left to the states), but I don’t understand linking Dan Cathy’s views to the Constitution. The stating of a belief by a private citizen, no matter what that belief is, does not deny anyone’s right to the pursuit of happiness. (Here also I will note that we are not guaranteed happiness, but the pursuit of it. Perhaps a nit, but I wanted to point that out just the same.)
Although we appear to be in different camps on the main issue, I enjoyed reading your comment. Thanks.
[...] blog, THE BRAUNSCHWEIGER EXPRESS, FAMILY, FRIENDS, RANTS AND POLITICS (NOT NECESSARILY IN THAT ORDER) has a post up about the Chick-fil-A/gay marriage kerfuffle started by the CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan [...]
I’m not sure we are in different camps, unless you are for gays not being allowed to patronize Chick-fil-A or are for political figures banning businesses based upon the CEO’s personal beliefs. I am against both of those things.
In the one case, Mr. Cathy is using is free speech rights to publicly take a political and religious position regarding what most Americans consider and extreme position on gay marriage, which has nothing at all to do with running a restaurant and treating all guests equally. He is also using a portion of his own profits to fund groups who are equally supportive of what most Americans consider an extreme position that discriminated against gay marriage. Again, he is within his constitutional rights and his personal action are not causing harm to the rights of others, however insulting they may be to some.
On the other hand, government officials threatening the use power to attempt to block an enterprise with a great reputation for service and food because of a political or religious position – in this case, both – also comes with consequences such as admonishments from voters and the public at large. Carrying through on such a threat provides legal consequences to punish unconstitutional behavior, including damages suffered by the restaurant to its reputation and finances.
I hope this clears things up a bit for you. Thank you for allowing my thoughts on the matter to be published for others to consider alongside your own. Best wishes, always. Your’s in liberty, –Rick
Rick, I am also against both of those things you mention in your first paragraph. Thanks again for your thoughts, and GO NAVY!
Okay, it’s been a month. Time for another post!!
Seriously, you’re too good to not write more.
Can’t wait to see your next effort.
I just want to address how strange it is that images of the “Westboro Baptist Church” in action keep appearing on the news as if they were a ubiquitous, ongoing, major social or political player in American religion, when in fact they are a single extended family that may or may not even be a religious group, and who have nothing to do with any actual denomination or school of theology now or at any time ever. Yet, the mainstream media make it look as if they are the face of Evangelical conservatism, a movement with which they actually have no connection and no sympathy. Fascinating. I think this phenomenon should be mentioned every time they are mentioned: that their role in the American religious scene is…well…they don’t have one. So why have the media made them look as if they represent anything?