Jay Richards and James Robison on the Chick-fil-A Controversy

The agitators chose a most improbable villain. Dan Cathy is the son of the 91-year-old founder of the company, S. Truett Cathy. Truett is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who is also a committed Christian. His fast-food chain is famous not only for tasty chicken sandwiches but also for being closed on Sundays. The Cathys don’t think of their company as a “Christian company,” but they have sought to run their business on “biblical principles.” This gives them a special interest in families.

“We are very much supportive of the family””the biblical definition of the family unit,” Mr. Cathy explained recently in an interview with the Baptist Press. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

In virtually every culture, marriage is an institution involving a public commitment between a man and a woman. The complementary nature of men and women points to the unique purpose of marriage: to bear and raise children. One can recognize this fact and so conclude that “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron””without being “anti-gay.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Anthropology, Corporations/Corporate Life, Economy, Ethics / Moral Theology, Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Media, Religion & Culture, Theology, Theology: Scripture

12 comments on “Jay Richards and James Robison on the Chick-fil-A Controversy

  1. drummie says:

    This whole situation is a a good example of what is going on in this country and probably the rest of the “western” world. “Progressives” (progress towards what? ?) have tried to snuff out Christianity and will continue to try. This man said nothing against “gays”. He defended a Biblical definition. Suddenly the “progressivs” label hin as a bigot and anti gay. These “progressives” show the same tolerance to Christians that the National Socialist did to the Jews in pre World War II Germany. I can not help but wonder if they know the definition of bigot any better than they do homophobia. For their education if they were to read here: Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”. How does restating a Truth from and defending the Bible fit this definition? Trying to destroy a man’s business because he defends Biblical truth is the height of bigotry. The politicians that have come out and stated they would try and stop Chick Fil A from locating in their district or from growing their business are a syjptom of what is really wrong with America. The “progressives” think the constitution is great when it supports their cause, but want to deny its protections to anyone they disagree with. Who appointed the mayor of Chicago or Boston or San Francisco as dictator of their cities? That is where the problem lies. From the White House down, the “progressive” politicians envision themselves as socialist dictators that decide what our values will be. Some might think that my views on this are too strong or wrong. So be it but I am tired of politicians trying to destroy in the name of “diversity” or “inclusivity” all that America is. The only tolerence they have is for those who agree with and will succumb to their ideas. We are a better people than that, and it is time we stand for Biblical truth and tell the politicians, the heretical “church” leaders and those that would silence Christianity that it will not work. It seems that I remember a clause about the Church that ” the gates of hell would not prevail against it”. I for one applaud Chick Fil A and their CEO for taking a stand in support of Biblical Truth and traditional Christain values. Hopefully the ballot box this fall in all locations will start to deliver this message to a nation whose leaders have gone astray and serve not God or their constituents, but mammon and their own selfish and heretical ideologies.

  2. NewTrollObserver says:

    I like, even “love”, Chick-Fil-A, having grown up a few miles from its first restaurant; and I have no intention (currently, at least) of boycotting it. However, this statement has to be addressed:

    [blockquote]He [i.e., Cathy] has simply articulated the historical Christian view of marriage, the same one President Obama endorsed until just a couple of months ago. For that thought crime, Mr. Cathy is now the target of a conspiracy of intimidation.[/blockquote]

    The people I personally know who are boycotting CFA, are not doing so because Cathy simply “said” something, but because CFA has contributed financial support (through its charity, WinShape) to groups like the Family Research Council. The FRC does lot of nice work supporting the strengthening of marriages, which is all fine and good. However, the FRC also supports the [url=http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC07I01]illegalization of homosexual behavior among consenting adults[/url]. Some Christians see that illegalization as a good thing, other Christians don’t, and I’m not arguing here one way or the other, but I simply want to point out that CFA, the corporation (and not simply Cathy the individual citizen), financially supports the FRC’s goals, goals that go beyond strengthening heterosexual marriages, beyond prohibiting same-sex marriages, and into legal realms that many Christians see as dangerous and un-Christian. One may disagree with the boycott, but why many are boycotting should be correctly understood.

  3. Milton Finch says:

    What is a right? What is illegalization? The owner of a United Sates company holds a belief and does what he wills with the money that finally belongs to him, in the end, after tithing. How is this ANY different than the millions given by Ben and Jerry’s, Microsoft, Apple, and the rest in their giving to homosexuality causes?

  4. Br. Michael says:

    2, you are defending nothing less than extortion and intimidation. But that is the only way that the homosexual agenda can be advanced.
    To support the things that CFA does is perfectly proper.

  5. Ad Orientem says:

    Re #3
    [blockquote] What is illegalization?[/blockquote]

    I think the term he was looking for is “criminalization.” In many states, sodomy, including consensual acts between adults, was a sex crime and a felony until the Supreme Court voided those laws in Lawrence vs Texas. And yes, it’s a fair point that there are some groups and churches, including the FRC, that want those laws reinstated. For the record I don’t support that. But it’s a moot point. They are dead and the Supreme Court is not going to revisit the topic.

    BTW I love Chic Fil A and regret that the nearest one is almost an hour away. But even if they were closer I could not have joined the big support CFA day since it fell on a Wednesday and also the first day of the Dormition Fast.

  6. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    We don’t have Chic Fil A over here – two questions occur to me:
    – Is this a healthy way to eat?
    – What do the chickens make of it all?

  7. Capt. Father Warren says:

    #6, the chickens support this because they are heterosexual, ie, the egg does come after the hens and roosters get together…….

  8. Milton Finch says:

    They did a story last night on the local Charleston, SC news after the big Kiss In, and the reporter from this area said some areas of the country experienced little if anything. Then they said ” but we found one demonstration located in Atlanta”. That is over 200 miles away. There are plenty of CFA’s in between. Much ado about nothing. Huge voice…very few people involved, really. Maybe they were taken back by the overwhelming support of people that are getting fed up with a never-ending uproar by a group that no one will ever be able to please.

  9. Br. Michael says:

    8, not only that, but the slightest opposition or failure to affirm their lifestyle will get one branded as a hater and bigot. See: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120803/NEWS02/308030124/Senate-nominee-Mark-Clayton-disavowed-by-Tennessee-Democratic-Party-?odyssey=nav|head

    What is truly frightening is that they are trying to use law and government to impose a gay totalitarianism. If the Democratic Party adopts a pro homosexual plank does any opposition to that party and its politics become anti gay hate an bigotry?

    I have become convinced that this is serious, polarizing and truly frightening. We are facing a very dangerous political movement which must be resisted at every level.

  10. Milton Finch says:

    #9, I believe there is a ground swell movement taking place as we speak. People are tired of in your face political sitcom shows, such as “the new normal” coming up on NBC this fall. Every show on mainline systems attacks the sensibilities of the regular people that watch. They end up not watching in the end, yet the next channel they move to shows the same political speak liberally fostered for mainline consumption. People are fed up! This fellow in Tennessee could easily win because he is getting back to the principles of the masses…and he’s not in line with the liberal mantra. Think of the senator from West Virginia who is democratic, yet continually votes the heart of his constituency that raised him into office. It is a crack in the liberal front that we are seeing where people that label themselves as democrats cannot and will not go along with the homosexualization of

  11. dwstroudmd+ says:

    REMIND ME how many states have had a ballot approval of same-sex “marriage”.

    TELL ME how many states with same-sex “marriage” have had it foisted upon them by the judiciary or legislature and REFUSE to put it to ballot.

    I hope the Democrats declare a pro-homosexual plank and have to walk it, because they will never, ever be able to make them “happy” without a victim status to appeal to and from.

    CIVIL UNIONS grant them all the benefits of marriage legally BUT they are NOT ENOUGH. Until we as a society are forced to view their bedroom behaviours and grant them either applause, adulation, or admiration, they will not be satisfied. Frankly, they exhibit it in Gay Pride Parades and it is, shall we say, unappealing.

  12. Milton Finch says:

    #11, the democrats cannot run on the economy, though that is the more important thing. They can only run on devisive issues that the media have brainwashed the masses with. The masses caught on quite well, especially with the abuse that fellow gave the counter girl at the Chick Fil A window. Let them run on a homosexual platform. The media will try to protect them all the more, while all the time, more channels click over to more fair and balanced fanfare.