home
RSS
My Take: Chick-fil-A controversy reveals religious liberty under threat
July 31st, 2012
10:36 AM ET

My Take: Chick-fil-A controversy reveals religious liberty under threat

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Special to CNN

(CNN)–Cultural upheavals often occur in the most surprising contexts. Who expected that a clash between sexuality and religious liberty would be focused on a restaurant company mainly known for its chicken sandwiches?

And yet the controversy over Chick-fil-A is a clear sign that religious liberty is at risk and that this nation has reached the brink of tyrannical intolerance from at least some of our elected leaders.

The controversy ignited when Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, son of the company’s legendary founder, Truett Cathy, told a Baptist newspaper that he and his company “operate on biblical principles” and “are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.”

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Defining Chick-fil-A as “a family business,” Cathy went on to say that “We intend to stay the course. … We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Media attention to Cathy’s comments revealed a radio interview he had given a few weeks earlier in which he commented that “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at (God) and say, ‘We know better than You what constitutes a marriage.'

“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we would have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about,” he said.

Within days, elected officials in Chicago, Boston and New York were pledging to deny the company access to their cities.

“Because of (Dan Cathy’s) ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward,” Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno said, in a threat echoed by
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was just as blunt: “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” he said. “We’re an open city. We’re a city at the forefront of inclusion.”

But the kind of inclusion he had in mind would evidently exclude Chick-fil-A.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who just recently married her lesbian partner, called upon New York University to kick Chick-fil-A off its campus.

9 religious companies (besides Chick-fil-A)

Echoing the Boston mayor’s lack of irony, she also called for exclusion in the name of inclusion: “We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength, and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that.”

Within days, Moreno, Emanuel and Menino had qualified their statements somewhat, promising to operate within the law and constitutional limits. Those clarifications became necessary when legal authorities quickly recognized threatened violations of First Amendment rights.

To his credit, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, warned, “You can’t have a test for what the owner’s personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city.”

Note carefully that Chick-fil-A was not charged with discrimination in hiring or service but simply with the fact that its president and chief operating officer supports traditional marriage.

Note something else: Dan Cathy’s statements were explicitly religious. He made his comments to the religious press, including a Baptist newspaper. His comments were infused with his Christian convictions, the same convictions that have led the company to close for business every Sunday.

The threats made against Chick-fil-A betray the principle of religious liberty that is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution. Civic officials in some of the nation’s largest and most powerful cities have openly threatened to oppose Chick-fil-A for the singular reason that its president openly spoke of his Christian convictions concerning marriage.

When Quinn, one of the most powerful officials in New York, announces, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views,” is she also threatening the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques?

They, along with evangelical Christian denominations, openly oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. Cathy’s statements are completely consistent with his own denomination’s statement of faith and official declarations. He was speaking as a Christian and as a Southern Baptist, and he was speaking as a man who does his best to live and speak as he believes.

Christian groups allege threats to religious freedom in anti-Chick-fil-A campaigns

When Emanuel and Moreno tell Chick-fil-A to stay out of Chicago, are they audacious enough to deliver that same message to the churches, mosques and synagogues of their city that also oppose same-sex marriage? What do they do with the fact that their own state does not allow same-sex marriages?

This country is deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage, and the controversy over Chick-fil-A is an ominous sign that many of the proponents of same-sex marriage are quite willing to violate religious liberty and to use any and all means to silence and punish any individual or organization that holds the contrary view – a view sustained by the voters in 29 states by constitutional amendments.

Addressing the intersection of same-sex marriage and religious liberty, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has warned that the government must not be “viewed as unfairly trying to pre-determine the debate or harass one side.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

That is exactly what some elected officials have just shown themselves ready to do. It will not stop with Chick-fil-A. Who will be next to be told to get out of town?

Disclosures:

I know Dan and Truett Cathy and other members of the Cathy family. Truett has spoken on our campus. I have prayed at the opening of multiple Chick-fil-A locations. I serve on the board of directors of Focus on the Family, which has been supported by Chick-fil-A. My son, Christopher, is a part-time service employee of a local Chick-fil-A restaurant in Louisville. I have not communicated with Chick-fil-A about this column.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler Jr.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Church and state • Homosexuality • Opinion • Religious liberty

soundoff (3,216 Responses)
  1. Huebert

    Can anyone show me where in the bible, chapter and verse please, marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman?

    July 31, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • Mary

      No, because the Bible talks about all kinds of unconventional marriages as acceptable. It's all pick & choose in that book.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • William Demuth

      The old spilling the seed of the fruit argument.

      Busting a nut without planting a seed.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • Romans

      Matthew 19:3-6 : "And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female', and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

      Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

      Please cite one place in scripture where it says that hom.ose.xual marriage was intended, or is acceptable......

      July 31, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Romans

      @ Mary:

      Please cite the different types of unconventional marriages that are deemed "acceptable" in the bible.......

      By calling some marriages unconventional, are you saying that there is a true, or conventional, type of marriage?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Huebert

      Romans

      Those verses do not prohibit hom.ose.xual marriage in any way, nor do they limit the definition to one man and one woman. Additionally I will not make any argument based upon the bible because I know that the bible is devoid of authority. I was just curious as to your logic.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Isaac had 2 wives, Rahoboam had 3, etc etc etc. Marriage was man + woman, man + woman + her property, (slaves), man + woman + his slaves + woman's slaves, ra'pist + the victim, soldier + the capives women, (including children). Can't you read ?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Romans

      @ Huebert: My post was meant to address Mary. However, your assertion seems problematic. You want to question my logic, but it is very simple. God created Man and Woman. He made woman out of man and bound them together (the first marriage). My logic is that God wanted to create a companion for man, so he made a Woman. If he had meant for man to have a choice with whom he wanted to partner, then he would have, but God's intention was that Man and Woman were to be together. Not man and man, and not woman and woman. Its very simple logic, the only reason I would guess you would question it is due only due to your presuppositions.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Romans

      @buckyball: And where in scripture are these atypical marriages endorsed by God as what was intended??? Don't let your emotions type for you, use sound reasoning. My knowledge of scripture shows me that these marriages you list are FAR from what God has intended as shown from the first marriage between Adam and Eve before original sin and before the fall of man.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Huebert

      Romans

      You say that god's intention is only for man and woman to be together. My question is what, in your holy book, leads you to this conclusion? So far you have posted two passages that do support male female marriage, but neither of these passages expressly limit marriage to one man and one woman, nor do they expressly prohibit, or even address, hom.ose.xual marriage.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Romans

      Huebert:

      Find one passage in scripture that encourages, endorses, legalizes etc. Hom.ose.xual marriage. I have given you clear examples of what is intended for marriage. Now I want you to advance your assertion by using citations from scripture. Please show me one verse that says that hom.o.se.xual marriage is lawful or acceptable. Ready, Go.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Fun with bible quotes

      Not sure where god says anywhere that this is far from what he intended. Maybe you've got a revised copy of your bible:

      " If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."

      "Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun"

      "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom"

      Want more? There's LOTS

      July 31, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Romans

      @ Fun with bible quotes:

      Do you know how to cite passages??

      Do you know the context behind these passages??

      My guess is no, because you're using them to proof text out of context. Two of the passages you cite are related to God disciplining and punishing his people.

      The first passage talks about mosaic laws that were used to govern a sinful people. The law was given to prevent confusion and prevent order within families. Nowhere in this passage or anywhere does it say that polygamy was lawful or decreed by God as good. This law and many like it in Deuteronomy were given to provide order within the Hebrew tribes as they made their way to Israel, and ultimately give way to the savior out of their nation. If you want to proof text and cite passages out of context go ahead. It wont make your assertions true, or your obviously limited understanding of biblical contextual exegesis any more compelling or logical.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Huebert

      Romans

      I never argued that Hom.ose.xual marriage is bionically endorsed, only that it is not prohibited. My argument is that since the bible does not say that hom.ose.xual marriage is unacceptable, Christians can not base their opposition to it on biblical principal.

      July 31, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Huebert

      err... Biblicly not bionically

      July 31, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Fun with Bible Quotes

      @Roman, typical fundie distraction technique:

      'oh, that quote disagrees with what I'm saying. Therefore, I'll claim that you're taking it out of context without actually backing that claim up'

      *yawn* Try harder.

      July 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • scendonp

      I think my reply was denied because it spoke truth. See Romans 1:24-28, of particular interest would be verses 26 and 27.

      July 31, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • just sayin

      scendonp

      I think my reply was denied because it spoke truth. See Romans 1:24-28, of particular interest would be verses 26 and 27.

      .
      Confused.. this has no authority in reality?????

      July 31, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • scendonp

      @just sayin'

      the post asked for a specific biblical reference. I gave one...how does it have no bearing?

      July 31, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • just sayin

      scendonp

      @just sayin'

      the post asked for a specific biblical reference. I gave one...how does it have no bearing?
      .
      my bad lol

      July 31, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Huebert

      Scendonp

      thanks

      July 31, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      your leaving something out that Christians don't obey

      Matthew 19:3-6 : "And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female', and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

      8-9Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."

      http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2011/01/24/conservative-christians-divorce-more-study-says

      what did Christ say about H0m0s3x4@l!ty

      ................................................................

      nothing

      I'll let Betty talk
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&w=640&h=390]

      July 31, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Aristocles

      Genesis 2:24

      "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

      July 31, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
    • bam

      does not exist....

      Can someone tell me when Mr Jesus told his followers to go forth ad be intolerant and bigoted against fellow man?

      July 31, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • Puritan

      I want to marry a goat. I need a tax write off.

      July 31, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Ray

      Matthew 19 (4-6)

      July 31, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
    • Jeebus! Jeebus! Jeebus!

      Which bible are you talking about?

      You have the right idea though, best to get these chimps to do the research for you.They enjoy it almost as much as smelling their fingers, it's like their best day ever.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • Truth

      YES.....Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

      August 2, 2012 at 9:50 am |
  2. mike hunt

    blah blah blah sheep. why didnt you guys boycott this business back when they donated the money? you all waited until media made a big deal about what he recently said to get all high and mighty. when are you going to start boycotting oil and stop buying gas? Those middle eastern countries REALLY have some anti-gay beliefs.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • *facepalm*

      I can't control where my gas comes from, and in case you hadn't noticed, everything is dependent upon oil. I'm not dependent on greasy fattening fast food. And I have lots of options if I do have a desire to fill my system with garbage. Had I known previously about their contributions to hate groups I certainly would never have given them my business

      Do you feel better about yourself asking such asinine questions?

      July 31, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Mary

      Guess what–I don't even own a car. I don't buy oil or gas. I use public transportation and my own two feet. However, I made that decision for environmental reasons. Besides, Islam is little to no threat to the US, but Christianity is a huge threat to our freedom. Just look at the terrorist attack where they blew up that guys' car, or any of the abortion clinic bombings, etc, combined with their government positions and power–it is truly terrifying.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Romans

      Really Mary? REALLY.......... Christians don't do Jih.ad......we're about Jesus. Your sensationalist crap is why this country is the way it is.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • mike hunt

      not agreeing with something does not equate hate.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • mike hunt

      relegion is why this country even exists.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
  3. Jason Binks

    IIf Religion gives you the freedom to discriminate and treat others as second class citizens, then I am glad you are losing your "religious freedom".

    July 31, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • You Are Your Own Victim

      Jason, who's being discriminated against and being treated like a 2nd class citizen?

      July 31, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  4. ME II

    I agree that the government has no right or authority to discriminate against religious viewpoints and officials that threatened actual denial of permits because of the owner's personal viewpoint are wrong to make those threats. period.

    However, it is not such a clear case when even you say that, the Cathy's are speaking, not just on personal views but the business's operations. If, as Cathy says, the company "operate[s] on biblical principles," and those principles exclude gays, then they are in violation of discrimination laws, not the government officials.

    "Truett Cathy, told a Baptist newspaper that he and his company 'operate on biblical principles' and 'are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.'"

    July 31, 2012 at 11:42 am |
  5. J.W

    If Chick Fil A thinks they are being discriminated against they should sue these cities. They are spending so much time whining you would think they were atheists.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Mary

      Hey now, at least atheists have a reason to whine. You'd be angry too if you were a member of the most hated minority group in the country.

      Christians, on the other hand, always whine to have their cake and eat it too. It's "religious discrimination" if we don't let them break the law and hurt people for their religion, or if we don't let them legislate their "morality" of hatred. An 80% majority being discriminated against? Riiiiight.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • Romans

      Don't act like a martyr there mary. How again are Christians breaking the law and hurting people in the name of Jesus in this case? Please feel free to use logic and rationality.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Jay

      Doesnt seem like Chik Fil A is whining at all. They are standing by their principles unapologetically. Its the pro gay marriage who are making the fuss and the threats.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Romans

      It's always been that way Jay. They're militantly shoving their agenda and culture down our throat, so that slowly but surely, it will be accepted purely from being immersed by it. Desensitization is how they'll get people to give up and accept their perversion.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • J.W

      They are whining because they are just sitting around claiming their freedoms are being taken away when they could just file a lawsuit and probably change all of it. For gays to get equal rights it will be more complicated.

      July 31, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
  6. William Demuth

    Religious liberty means being allowed to bugger Altar Boys, defraud little old ladies, fund super pacs and promote bigoted ideas without having to pay taxes!

    Great country!

    July 31, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Amen!

      July 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • bam

      get rid of these pathetic Tax Exemptions.

      July 31, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
  7. Mary

    Just because people aren't giving Christians special rights does NOT mean religious liberty is under threat.

    However, religious liberty is under threat–from Christians. I ask you, why is it that every day, in a public school, my son must recite a pledge to the Christian god? Why has my son come home talking about god when I have not introduced the concept to him? Christianity has invaded and Christians have tried to poison my son's innocent mind. We need to keep church and state separate! And Christians need to keep their hands off other people's kids!

    July 31, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • William Demuth

      They do covet the children don't they?

      Be wary of them, or your kids will be sent to die in some third world hell hole in our next Middle Eastern crusade

      July 31, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Get A Life - QUICK!

      Why do you live in one nation under God? Why do you spend money and pass the associated message, "In God We Trust"?

      July 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Kosher Kow

      GET A LIFE

      you do realize "in god we trust" was not original on our currency? it was added much, much later.

      July 31, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
  8. Cheryl

    I am really tired of having gay rights force fed down my throat. I understand and believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs; however it seems that when a person does not agree with gay marriage or a gay union, they are criticized and singled out as being haters. Not everyone needs to agree with a gay union. I personally do not feel it is right. I never have. I have nothing against gays and actually have friends that are gay, however, something deep inside me feels that something is wrong. I cannot help the way I feel. Does this mean that I have to pretend I feel this is right so I don’t get criticized? All religious views aside, people should be able to express their feelings about this. Whether they are all for it, or not, it is their decision. People also have a right to their religious views if they do not agree with gay marriage that is THEIR choice. Just as it is a gay person’s choice to be Gay. Why is there such a prejudice against people who believe being gay is not right or moral? THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION TOO. I don’t think it is morally right and never will.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • LinCA

      @Cheryl

      You said, "I am really tired of having gay rights force fed down my throat."
      Shut up and put your burqa back on. </sarcasm>

      July 31, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • J.W

      If they had the same rights then those rights would not be force fed down your throat.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • William Demuth

      Cheryl

      Your use of throat forcing in reference to Gat rights might to some seem to indicate an underlying fixation?

      Perhaps your rejection is what really has your knickers in a knot?

      July 31, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • ME II

      @Cheryl,
      "Not everyone needs to agree with a gay union. "
      You don't have to agree, that is your right, but denying someone their rights is discrimination and should not be condoned, whether you agree with it or not.

      You may not think a man and a woman should get married, for whatever reason, but you wouldn't dream of making it illegal for them.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Frater

      People can feel whatever they want to.. if they don't feel that gay is the right thing, then they don't have to be gay!

      When it becomes an issue, is when you force your views on another person, such as by denying them the right to marry the person they love, or to have the same benefits for their partner, that you do.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • anon

      you have every right to your opinion. and everyone has the right to criticize you for your opinion.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • *facepalm*

      Do you think that the black community was 'shoving their agenda' down people throats in the 50s and 60s when trying to advance civil rights?

      July 31, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • Huebert

      Cheryl

      Let me help you out. You, like everyone else, have a right to your opinion. You, again like everyone else, do not have a right to deny another person's rights because of your opinion. Everyone has the right to criticize your opinion. you have the right to criticize everyone else's opinion. hope that helps

      July 31, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • just sayin

      July 31, 2012 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
      Cheryl

      I am really tired of having gay rights force fed down my throat.
      ----

      Yeah people in the South used to the same way about black folk's civil rights. Pesky civil rights.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      " Not everyone needs to agree with a gay union. I personally do not feel it is right. I never have. I have nothing against gays and actually have friends that are gay, however, something deep inside me feels that something is wrong."

      so what you are saying is that gays are cool with you as long as they are not afforded the freedoms and benefits of a civil union. This is discrimination.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Which God??

      @ Cheryl. Then you really don't have gay friends. You merely tolerate them. You are a fraud, and no friend at all.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • jenner

      Cheryl, ask your gay friends if it was a choice...I'll bet they say no.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Wrongs are never right

      First of all, there are no "gay rights". There are rights for American citizens. The gays you refer to being in everyone's face reflect nothing more than a sad attempt to legitimize their behavior in hopes of it becoming mainstream acceptable to the point that's the way EVERYBODY thinks. Disagree? Then you are a bigot, and they are tolerant! Seems the folks that scream intolerance are always the least likely to give it.

      July 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • just sayin

      Wrongs are never right

      First of all, there are no "gay rights". There are rights for American citizens. The gays you refer to being in everyone's face reflect nothing more than a sad attempt to legitimize their behavior in hopes of it becoming mainstream acceptable to the point that's the way EVERYBODY thinks. Disagree? Then you are a bigot, and they are tolerant! Seems the folks that scream intolerance are always the least likely to give it.
      -

      So how does same s e x marraige "get in someones face"? Whoever is denying is the one getting in one's faces. Before civil liberties I guess those pesky blacks were trying to get in the faces of good ole white Americans. You are quite pathetic.

      July 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Mark

      No, of course you don't have to "agree" with gay people having the same rights in this country as you, but expect to be put in the same category as racist bigots. If you don't mind that designation, then speak your mind as freely as you choose. Go for it.

      July 31, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
  9. Kagulow

    This argument comes form the people who protest Muslims wanting to build or add onto a mosque. Where's the religious freedom and equality there? Switch the roles and make Chik fil A Muslims against Christians and you can guarantee they would scream discrimination and ban them from their city.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • junior

      You are generalizing, unless you can prove that Mr. Cathy has been vocal against a mosque being built your claim is unsubstantiated.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • William Demuth

      Junior

      Even YOU know that is a childish response.

      When ANY religion uses political force to exclude others, freedom is the big loser.

      Christians will do ANYTHING, including fighting wars and supporting despots to hold power.

      It's not because they are divine, only human. Thats why you realize if one of the other cults rises to dominance, it is you and yours that will have the boot of a non existant God at your throat.

      What goes around eventually comes around, and you are well served to be afraid, because there are large numbers of people who have waitied a lifetime for vengance, and they are smelling blood in the water.

      The end is near. If Jeebus is coming, it better be soon, or he wont find any Christians left when he gets here :)

      July 31, 2012 at 11:54 am |
  10. midwest rail

    Another " religious liberty " is under attack diatribe. Utter nonsense. Contemporary faux Christians have spent decades, if not longer, marginalizing and vilifying gay people based on their personal morality. Now that gay people are fighting back, the modern faux Christian wraps himself in the mantle of victim-hood and cries persecution. Sad and pathetic.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:34 am |
  11. freedom is liberty

    Religious liberty? Really? Someone is holding a gun to chic to convert or die? I don't think so...

    Bigotry is in the dictionary, you should look it up.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • junior

      Religion and Faith are much more than Sunday attendance or membership. It isn't how high you jump on Sunday, it is how well you walk on Monday.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:34 am |
  12. Jason

    He's free to believe whatever he wants and donate to causes he believes in same as anyone else. Conversely, I'm just as free to not eat in his restaurants if I don't like the causes he uses corporate funds to support. Isn't freedom great?

    July 31, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • Houston Thomas

      I don't see him disagreeing with that in this article. I do think when an elected official says a company cannot do business in his or her ward or city because he or she personally disagrees with the CEO on a religious issue, that is no longer the "freedom" I want in this country.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:25 am |
  13. I'm The Best!

    I think this guy may be an idio.t. his points are all terrible. The reason these people are talking about excluding someone from an all-inclusive city is because that someone (chic-fil-a) is excluding the rights of certain people. There can't be an all-inclusive society if people in that society are excluding others within that society.

    You can say "well, chic isn't actively excluding anyone in their business". My response to that is "these mayors aren't actively excluding chic from opening a store, they're just voicing their opinions, just like Cathy did."

    This has been blown way out of proportion, no laws were broken here.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • junior

      Chic Fil A is not excluding persons.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • huhb

      Indeed. Telling me my marriage is against your religion is like telling me I can't have a cookie because you're on a diet.

      Religious liberty means you get to practice your religion, not that you get to insist everyone else live according to it.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • junior

      Mr. Cathy is not insisting on his customers changing their lifestyle.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  14. Nicholas

    Chick fil A is a business not a church.

    July 31, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • Dee

      Did you read the article. He gave an interview to a CHRISTIAN organization. He is allowed to have his opinion. Where is the intolerance with Amazon, JC Penny, Microsoft? They openly support gay marriage and just donated millions to it. Where is your outcry there. Like most of these opinions they are neither well thought out or very misinformed.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • YeahRight

      "They openly support gay marriage and just donated millions to it. Where is your outcry there. Like most of these opinions they are neither well thought out or very misinformed."

      It's because the many Christians intolerance aren't based on the real facts of today. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      Social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Houston Thomas

      Dear "YeahRight,"

      You surely are OK with someone holding a different opinion than your own on this issue, right? You surely don't want the state to punish everyone who disagrees with this opinion by saying they can't do business in their city. That seems to be to be a lot like a totalitarian state, not a free one.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Ben

      I think you are saying that Science is more trustworthy than God. And I know this sounds crazy and if I didnt believe I would think the same, but thats why Christians and others who are not Christians don't see eye to eye. You trust in what man says, where as a Christian trusts in what God says.

      And I know your response, "you idiot I trust in what I can see," but I feel the same way. If He made the place and He made us, I think I'll go with what He says is right. And also if man is flawed, how can I trust in what a flawed person says? That being said, I would never expect someone who doesn't believe to think that, nor am I really trying to win you over to my point. But I think you should understand why a Christian would think that way. Its a difference in the starting point of logic.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • ME II

      @Ben,
      "...a Christian trusts in what God says."
      You trust in what someone else says that God says. Correct?

      July 31, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Ben

      @Me I guess that really depends if you believe the Bible is divinely inspired, and I do. I guess if I believe God exists and wants humans to have a restored relationship with Him, than yea I think that He is gonna say something. I think He just used people to write down what He wanted to say.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @Ben,

      Why do you think your god advocated stoning rape victims?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Ben

      I am but a flawed human. Who am I to question God’s plan?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • ME II

      @Ben,
      "I guess that really depends if you believe the Bible is divinely inspired, and I do. "
      Why?
      In other words, perhaps you believe the Bible is divinely inspired because someone (probably multiple people) said it was.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Ben

      @facepalm – What? Please be more specific about the obscure piece of Scripture you are speaking of.

      @fake ben – ok, I don't think its wrong to question God, but you do have to at some point either take it or leave it.

      @me II – I have heard that it was divinely inspired, but thats not why I believe it. I am not a robot nor do I just believe what people say, I have an intellect and I've thought about what I believe, and I wouldn't waste my time if I didn't think it were true. If you read the whole Bible, you see its all connected, there is a central theme through thousands of years and it all points to Christ in some way or another. I've read the Bible and its like no book I have ever read before because it changed my life. Its as deep as you want it to be, there is no way in my mind after studying it for so long that I can contend that it could exist apart from God piecing it together. I get the skepticism, honestly I've been there, but just because you don't think something can't be, doesn't make it true.

      Now here is where we will probably disagree. I say if you dont want God dont believe Him, I wish you would, but I realize everyone isn't going to believe, and me shoving it down your throat will do nothing, it has to be initiated in your heart and so I'll let you decide yourself. However, my faith offends you and I realize that you want it to end, am I correct? And that is the frustrating part, Cathy and every other Christian has to shut up, because what we believe is wrong and its called intolerance. Even though our source of it is God Himself. The truth is that we are the ones not being tolerated, we are the ones being discriminated because of our faith, and I'm okay with that, it happened to Christ, but I just never thought religious intolerance would happen here in America.

      July 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Deuteronomy 22:24-30.

      And I probably should have clarified. You can only stone rape victims if they were raped in a city. My bad. Also, if the rape victim was a virgin, then she gets to live, she just has to marry the rapist.

      Very moral, that book of yours.

      July 31, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • jimmer

      " there is no way in my mind after studying it for so long that I can contend that it could exist apart from God piecing it together"

      What a fvcking dunce!

      Have you even studied the history of your silly book. It was pieced together by humans over several hundreds years. It was edited, had sections removed, had passages added, was translated multiple times, and is one of the most adulterated so called "historical" texts ever.

      God had no part in it.

      You can thank King James for you particular version of said myth.

      July 31, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • jimmer

      "we are the ones being discriminated because of our faith"

      Again, an immeasurable fvcking dunce.

      How many community leaders are calling for your right to practice your religion to be stripped?

      How many community leaders are calling for limitations on your marriage rights?

      How many community leaders are forcing you to marry a hom ose xual?

      The answer is NONE.

      Your pathetic persecution routine would be funny if it were not so....well, pathetic.

      You are being persecuted. Your rights are not being infringed.

      Now please, go back to the trailer park and worship your little idols.

      July 31, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • ME II

      @Ben,
      "I am not a robot nor do I just believe what people say, I have an intellect and I've thought about what I believe, and I wouldn't waste my time if I didn't think it were true. If you read the whole Bible, you see its all connected, there is a central theme through thousands of years and it all points to Christ in some way or another."

      So, if I have this straight, you used your own intellect to determine that the Bible is more trustworthy than your own intellect. Is that correct?

      July 31, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
  15. Hypatia

    Trust an xian to think that their fairy tale is worth shoving every other person under the bus.

    July 31, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Wrongs are never right

      You mock the Chinese?

      July 31, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  16. Houston Thomas

    I appreciate your pointing out the irony in the "inclusivist" camp to be so quick to exclude those who don't agree with them.

    July 31, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • Ron J.

      Do you draw the line at discriminating against gays, or are there other groups that it would be to openly discriminate against?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
  17. llɐq ʎʞɔnq

    As usual this Mohler dude proves himself incapable of critical thinking. A mayor of a city has a perfect right to go out and and attempt to attract the kinds of businesses that have proven themselves to be good for the community. This company has a long history of discriminatory practices against the employees, and franchise holders. This is not about religion. It's about respect for the law, in a country which is built on "all men are created equal". The owners of Chick-Fil-A, have also proven themselves ignorant of the Bible. There are many many marriage arrangements in the bible. Apparently Mohler is also ignorant of his own book.

    Individuals have a right to religious liberty. Companies do not. The board at this seminary needs to initiate a search for someone who is capable of rational thought, and is educated both in 6th Grade Civics, and 2nd Grade Bible study.

    July 31, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • xsmokedoutx

      Yeah....Cathy's company is privately held so he can do whatever he wants. Also even if it were publicly held and the share holders wanted religious values, you couldn't stop it. You know, like a mission statement could contain Biblical references and that is perfectly legal.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • Dee

      Are you serious? Give me ONE example of this LONG history of discrimination. That is made up. If it were true you would of seen it in the media lately with all the other mud slinging going on.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • QueenB

      PLEASE, PLEASE, show me in the Bible the exclusions to marriage.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      What you can't Google. There are many people complaining about employee abuses, and franchisee discrimination. As for the Bible, marriage was many things, The Partriarchs had many wives, marriage was woman + man, man + woman + woman's property, (her slave(s), etc etc etc. I can come up with 10 different arrangements, including rapist + victim, soldier + conquered women, including childeren. Why do Christians need atheists to teach them their own book ?

      July 31, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • egb

      You have lost your mind and this is quite possibly the most bias, incorrect, and idiotic statement I have seen yet. Please give one example of a long history of discriminating practices.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • realbuckyball

      http://shaunindustry.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/boycott-chick-fil-a/

      July 31, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • QueenB

      @ llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      I don't need an athiest to tell me what is in the Word of God. There are a lot of things in the Bible that God specifically forbids. God (Yahweh) gives us a set of instructions on how to live but also gives us free will. Just because it is in the Bible doesn't make it right. Meaning, We were provided with examples on how to live and how NOT to live. Be more educated about the Word of the True and living God before making erroneous statements about it. If God says it is wrong and not be, then that is exactly what He meant.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • *facepalm*

      " If God says it is wrong and not be, then that is exactly what He meant."

      So you don't wear polycotton blends, right? And you stone rape victims? And disobedient children? And you kill non believers?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      So make up your mind please. First you say you want "biblical" marriage. Now you bail out, as I know more about your holy book than you do. I hope you realize Yahweh was the 70 th son of El Elyon, and basically a pagan god. Apparently you DO need an atheist to teach you your own tradition.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • L Rivera

      bucky, queen answered well. If you read Jesus answer, he talked about a man-woman relationship. About the other things that you see in the law, Jesus was asked about that too. He was asked why God allowed divorce, even when the Bible says God hates it. And he said that it was because of their hearts that were hard, but that in the beginning was not like that, the original intention was always one man and one woman. I believe and have observed that such arrangement is the most beneficial one for raising children and for a strong society.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:48 am |
  18. tallulah13

    I believe that it's up to the private citizen, not the political body, to decide the fate of Chick-fil-a in any given city. That said, it's nice to see that the author of this article openly admits that irrational bigotry is part of his faith. It's that irrational bigotry that is under threat, not religion.

    July 31, 2012 at 10:56 am |
  19. rAmen

    cry babies

    July 31, 2012 at 10:53 am |
  20. *facepalm*

    If someone hid their racist behind a bible, no one would be coming to their defense claiming an attack on religious liberty. That sexual bigotry is unfortunately more acceptable in our society doesn't make the defense of bigotry and ignorance any less reprehensible.

    July 31, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • ian

      +1

      "Religious liberty" isn't under attack, but hateful bigotry might be.

      July 31, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      Correct, its not religious liberty, its religious bigotry that's under attack

      July 31, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • xsmokedoutx

      So you are bigoted against the bigots? That makes you equally reprehensible....?

      July 31, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Brcc

      First, racism or any personal hatred towards an individual is not tolerated by the Christian faith, so there is nothing to "hide behind." Second, it is a fact that Christianity (as well as other religious faiths) have viewed marriage only between a man and woman for thousands of years. It is only recently that non-religious people changed their minds on the subject. I have news for you: religion is not going to change its mind, so the only way out is to snuff it out..... sounds an awful lot like the rest of history.

      A note about religious liberty. For centuries religious people have been persecuted and even put to death for their beliefs. Our country was founded on the basis that people could practice their beliefs freely. Just what beliefs made people and governments so angry as to silence, torture and even kill Christians in the past and why do you think that this case is any different? What beliefs did you think this country was founded to protect? Just curious.

      July 31, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • *facepalm*

      "racism or any personal hatred towards an individual is not tolerated by the Christian faith"
      -Try reading any history book ever written that goes back more than a decade.

      "religion is not going to change its mind"
      -That's so incredibly wrong as to be laughable. Most of the christian community in this country has changed its mind on interracial marriage. And that's just in the last few decades. The religious community overall in this country is already seeing an overwhelming shift to support gay rights. Epic Fail.

      "For centuries religious people have been persecuted and even put to death for their beliefs."
      Yup, Christians kills heretics for years. Of course, the bible commands them to.

      "Our country was founded on the basis that people could practice their beliefs freely. "
      -You can't do whatever you want in the name of religion. The bible commands people to kill unbelievers. Do you think Christians should be allowed to do that?

      Just what beliefs made people and governments so angry as to silence, torture and even kill Christians in the past and why do you think that this case is any different?
      -Try reading up on the history of Christianity. Get over your persecution complex

      "What beliefs did you think this country was founded to protect?" Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ever heard of those? Why does the religious right seek to limit the latter two of the gay community?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • jimmer

      "So you are bigoted against the bigots? That makes you equally reprehensible....?"

      So people who don't accept the K K K are bigots?

      You jesustards are dumber than a mules rectum.

      July 31, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.