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?


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. J.W

    Lets just grant everyone complete religious liberties, so that they can practice any religion that they wish, and they do not have to abide by any moral laws that they do not agree with. If that is what the conservatives want, we should just give it to them.

    August 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
  2. Mikeindm

    I think religious liberties are more at threat from Michele Bachman's comments about Muslim's than they are with this Chick-fil-A issue.

    August 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  3. BamaDaniel

    What's wrong with thinking 2 men should not be married?

    August 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • J.W

      It depends if you have a good reason for thinking that.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Roaj

      What's wrong with thinking two difference races shouldn't be married?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • BamaDaniel

      Because I'm a straight man who loves woman juice and two men together just ain't right(with a country drawl say it slow)

      August 1, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • BamaDaniel

      @roaj,nothing you have the right to your beliefs,nature put male and female.together not Male and male

      August 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • *facepalm*


      It would seem you don't know much about nature. But if you like having your head in the sand, more power to you, I guess.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Roaj


      Disease is natural, should we protest hospitals for interfering with nature?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • ME II

      You are free to think what you like, but passing a law that enforces that thought would be, IMO, discriminatory.

      August 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
  4. Wendy

    What is on trial is the truth which cannot be changed in the court of public opinion. Winning the right to marry will in no way change the truth which is eternal and unchangable. Gays can only have the moral high road if they are right, the truth can be subverted but it cannot be hidden from the eyes of God, and what He sees and says is the only opinion that counts. So lets love one another and pray that God opens our eyes and our hearts that we may obey Him and rejoice in His perfect will and ways. After all, we have all sinned and fallen short.

    August 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • BamaDaniel

      I haven't sinned and I'm not short

      August 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  5. Joseph MA

    Can someone give an answer to this question:

    How is contributing dollars to support traditional form of marriage discriminatory, while contributing dollars to support gay marriage is not discriminatory?

    When you contribute dollars to support gay marriage, aren't you descriminating against all the people who believe marriage should be between man and woman only?

    August 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • Derp

      Joseph, when you say "traditional family values" what you're really doing is relabeling an ANTI-GAY belief. Traditional family values sounds nice doesn't it? But what you're saying is that you don't believe gay people should be able to have the same rights and be able to do the same things you can do with your significant other.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Leo

      REALLY easy: Nobody is telling the straight folks they can't get married. Nobody is trying to prevent straight marriage. Never mind apples-to-oranges. You're trying to compare apples to rocks.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Are gays trying to prevent hetero people from getting legally married? No? Then your point is what exactly?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • Roaj

      Were the laws enacted to strike down laws restricting of interracial marriages discriminating against people who believe that marriage should only be between one white man and one white women or one black man and one black women?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • Cece

      It's discrimination when he is donating to organizations that are reconized as hate groups and that seek to expell all gays from the US. He donated to a hate group. That is fact.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • Joseph MA

      @Derp – The term traditional form of marriage conveys two things.

      1. Marriage form in which marriage has been recognized over time
      2. A form through which humans have evolved over time

      In this debate of what gays should get or shouldn't get, I wonder whether we are forgetting that we are potentially trying to leave the cration of next genertion to factories. Is that something you wouldn't mind or you don't think it to be a possibility?

      And for the rest of the group, thanks for the answers. That leads to another question. What exactly is marriage? Do we have a definition of marriage? What has it meant before? What do you think it should mean? What is the purpose of marriage?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • J.W

      Donating to a pro-gay organization is not really discriminatory. It is more anti-discrimination I would say.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • J.W

      Marriage is a loving partnership between two consenting adults, both of whom have the capacity to enter into a legal contract.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • BamaDaniel

      Marriage is an ancient tradition of families choosing to continue their bloodlines together

      August 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Jen

      Joseph MA,

      Gays use the same reproductive technologies that straight people use. Do you think that infertile straight couples should be banned from using reproductive drugs, IUI or IVF? Do you think it's your right to tell straight couples that they are not allowed to have children?

      I saw that you commented that 'factory' children are cheaper. Obviously you are not aware that fertility treatments can cost tens of thousands of dollars. 'Natural' children are totally free.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Joseph MA

      The two definitions
      (1) Marriage is a loving partnership between two consenting adults, both of whom have the capacity to enter into a legal contract
      (2) Marriage is an ancient tradition of families choosing to continue their bloodlines together

      they vary in meaning. And it is just two definitions. There are many more possible definitions based on who is answering.

      Obviously someone who thinks marriage is associated with procreation is not going to accept the definition that it is just a contract between two adults.

      And herein is the problem. Those who are already married based on their religious beliefs do not want the meaning of their marriage to be altered as something else. Any redefinition of marriage shouldn't ignore the meaning that it now has for people who are already married. Isn't that fair enough reasoning?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
  6. Tiredofhypocrites

    Anybody can say what they want. But freedom of speech comes with a price. When you pass judgement on others – expect that to come right back to you. Remember – "Judge not, that you be not judged". I think there are a lot of Americans that are sick and tired of hypocritical "Christians" living very un "Jesus" like lives espousing their belief as if it is doctrine. When really it is used to discriminate and create policies that hurt a group of individuals. Not to long ago – the Bible was used as justify criminalizing interracial marriage. I thought Jesus was about love and acceptance – this is the farthest thing from that.

    August 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
  7. Quinn

    Nobody's religious liberties are being threatened. Do you really believe that?

    People are just refusing to support the company because they don't believe in discrimination. Nobody's liberties are being threatened.

    August 1, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
  8. Sy2502

    There is no growing intolerance toward religious beliefs. There is growing intolerance for bigotry, hate, and intolerance. Religious beliefs just happen to occasionally coincide with those.

    August 1, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Sy2502: You said you have a "growing intolerance for... intolerance." So you hate yourself?

      August 1, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • *facepalm*


      So you tolerate al Qaeda and the KKK?


      August 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Russ

      @ *facepalm*: no – but I'm not the one claiming to be intolerant of something I do myself.
      your label belongs on the quote's originator.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      So, I'm intolerant of racists. Racists are intolerant. So, I'm in intolerance of intolerance. I guess that means I hate myself. Riiiiiight. So, anyone who isn't a racist and doesn't passively enable discrimination hates themselves.

      Maybe you should consider thinking before you type next time.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • Russ

      @ *facepalm*: my objection was to the way Sy2502 (is that another handle of yours?) had worded it. I completely agree that we should be intolerant of racism – but not out of some false notion of politically correct self-righteousness (in which one tells oneself "I'm tolerant & they aren't" while being very much intolerant). No, the basis of my objection is that they are doing something evil that should not be tolerated – which is based on a metaphysical appeal rather than a self-refuting, hypocritical statement.

      August 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
  9. PJ

    That's right!! Not being able to impose your beliefs on EVERYone is a threat to Christianity. Best take these people down like the Taliban they are. Waiter! Drone, please...

    August 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
  10. Jeepgirl

    This goes to out to both sides of the arguement – to be tolerated, one must be tolerant. Chickfila's CEO has the right to his own personal beleifs. If you do not agree with his beleifs or the programs that his company donates to, it is your right not to eat there. But for any city to deny chickfilas business due to their religious standing is discrimination. If someone tried to deny a business license to an estasblishment because the owner's were gay or supported gay causes there would be huge lawsuits. The bottom line is that everyone has the right to their own personal beleifs, if they own a business they have the right to "associate" that business with their beleifs (so long as they do not deny employment, customers, etc based on those beleifs). If we happen to disagree with those beleifs, we have the right to not personally support that company. However to protest or say you are going to refuse them to service your city makes you just as intolerant as you are sayng they are.

    I beleive in God/higher power. I beleive the Bible was written by man and therefore is not infallable and any good person Christian or otherwise should use good judgment in how they think/treat others. I do not agree with chickfilas stance on gay marriage or "traditional" family BUT if I liked their establishment, I would not let their own personal beleif on the matter deter me from doing business with them.

    August 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
  11. tam1957

    Being a gay male this directly affects me. However, I do NOT condone boycotting Chik-fil-A I will be having lunch there today. I have a great respect and admiration for this company, that, when all else is against them, the still remain closed on Sundays. Thank you for that. I may disagree with the CEO's view on Gay Marrage, but I support his right to his view, and how to run his company. If people dont like the food, dont eat there....I for one, love their food, and will be eating there again.

    August 1, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • No Truth, Just Claims

      Well said and well thought out.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Jacob

      I'm suuuure you're a gay man. I can understand a lot of you point.....but it's more than just gay marriage. They don't like you because they believe the core of who you are is wrong. If you want to spend your money to support groups that in turn spend your money against you, that's fine. However, it would be silly to think your perspective is one that should be voiced to the community at large as representative of anyone other than yourself.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Jeepgirl

      Thank you Tam – you stated my point better than I did.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • DIY Diva Unleashed

      Thank you for being a voice of reason and common sense.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • jeff

      Though, that means you will be giving money to a man who will spend that money on organizations that want to take away your liberties.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      @DIY Diva Unleashed
      "Thank you for being a voice of reason and common sense."

      Don't EVER take my name in vain, you cretin!

      August 1, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • anthomas213

      Chik Fil A gives MILLIONS of dollars a year to organizations that seek to take away your rights and continue to prohibit you from being able to marry your partner if you so choose. It affects you more than you are aware of apparently.

      August 1, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  12. Voice of Reason

    To me, Mohler's photo depicts the traits of someone that could be considered a little light-footed. That smile, that wayward left eye thingy. Frankly, it's a very creepy photo, not that being light in the loafers is creepy, I could care less, it just seems ironic.

    August 1, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
  13. bs1

    Religious liberty is not under threat, those who falsely claim it is are the true threat to religion. Chick fil a has the right to put it's corporate religious views front and center, and the public has the right to not do business with them as a result.

    August 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Cq

      Yes, and there are plenty of Christians who support gay marriage, so where is the discussion on how this opposition infringes on their religious freedom? Of course, conservatives don't consider any Christians not standing with them against gay marriage to be "real" Christians, but what gives them the right to believe that their theology trumps all others?

      August 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Ransom

      Atheistic freedom is not under threat.They think it is because they want to feel wanted?

      August 1, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Howard

      Well put.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Jacob

      This is how America and the free market functions everyone!!!!

      August 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
  14. Joseph MA

    Bought a sandwitch from ChickFilA. I didn't know they had this long lines!!

    Decided to show support and bought another one today as well. Lines still long.

    I Guess the number of online posts are no indication of reality. People still overwhelmingly support the traditional form of marriage.

    Those who are not supporting the same remember one thing: you are supporting a future generation of factory made kids who could bring to extinction kids born naturally

    August 1, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Jesus Christ

      Obviously you are the only man with your finger on the pulse of who eats at this sad little eatery and who doesn't. Also, you seem to be confused about my idea of "traditional Marriage." Where, in your bible, did I ever call something (and I mean literally) a "Traditional Marriage"? I might point out that the world is overpopulated and perhaps I created gay people so that so many breeders like yourself will eventually die out and there will be a better balance here on the Earth.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Primewonk

      Please explain how you will make all humans gay? Be specific. Use validated science.

      Or is it that you think being born gay renders you sterile?

      You really don't have a grasp on this science thingy, do you?

      August 1, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • BRC

      "Those who are not supporting the same remember one thing: you are supporting a future generation of factory made kids who could bring to extinction kids born naturally"

      That, is quite simply stupid. Allowing gay marriage won't reduce the number of children born to hetero parents, or reduce the prevalence of "traditional families". It will simply give gay couples , who already exist, already have children using alternative methods, and already have manogamous relationships the opportuniity to have the same official recognition and legal protection of state marriage that all other citizens already have.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Concerned Citizen

      Traditional marriage? That you can no longer sell your daughter for two goats and a cow means that there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Joseph MA

      Marriage between man and woman has been the official way of creating the next generation through natural means. That has been in existence even before bible or any religious books.

      As of now, means exist to create kids through other means in exceptional cases that is not the norm but exception.

      Redefining marriage means we redefine the means of creating the next generation. Obviously better kids could be created in a factory/lab enviornment. The factory methods would be supported more by the business and promoted with a stream lined approach.

      Why take a costlier approach of child bearing and delivery (say 10K for a kid through natural means) if the same kid could be created in a Factory for $100 ??

      August 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • Laurie in Spokane

      And tell me, exactly HOW is gay marriage going to lead to "factory" kids, unnaturally born? Far as I'm aware, 100% of all humans are born from a woman, whether she be gay or straight. Give some more thought to what you're spouting and not just listen to right-wing reactionary mind-shapers.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • ME II

      @Joseph MA,
      "Marriage between man and woman has been the official way of creating the next generation through natural means."
      Sorry, but marriage has little to do with procreation in the sense that se.x is the mechanism of "creating the next generation", not marriage.
      Society may encourage traditional marriage as a means of raising children, but producing children does not require it.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "People still overwhelmingly support the traditional form of marriage."

      Nope, not in the least. Lines at Chik-fil-a are anecedotal at best. That's like going to a KKK rally and saying that people overwhelming support white supremacy. Your claim is easily refuted by any number of recent scientific studies.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Joseph MA

      *facepalm* – the claim of people support for traditional form of marriage is not based on ChickFilA lines. We have, I believe about 30 states who have already passed laws favoring the traditional form, haven't we?? And still counting...

      I was pleasantly surprised to see the lines in ChickFilA. If all these online posts were any true indication of general public feelings towards the food chain, that place could've looked deserted.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • IdiotsAmongUs

      Ignorance is not a virtue. Nor is standing up for your beliefs in that they are flawed and illogical. A few cases to ponder: 1.) Hitler stood up for his beliefs that any “non-Aryan” were subhuman; 2.) The Catholic Church stood up for its belief that Galileo was a heretic; 3.) Segregationists stood up for their belief that minorities should always remain separate from whites.

      Now matter how much you want to idealize more and more belief with less and less evidence (that which you and the likes of the eternal nit wit Sarah Palin call "faith"), clear-thinking individuals will see right through the ruse. The virtue lies not in how strongly you believe something, but what you believe and why. Beliefs based on fear, ignorance, and misinformation will never stand the test of time. You and your fellow brethren are on the wrong side of history when you continue to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens as your fear-based bias is plain for all to see.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Joseph, please educate yourself:


      I think you'll find that those lines are filled with white evangelicals (likely the same can be said for KKK rallies)

      August 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Joseph MA

      Wow IdiotsAmongUs – Do you truly believe that any Christian or other person who believes marriage should be between man and woman only have taken that stance because they all have beliefs based on fear, ignorance, and misinformation?? That is a whole lot of people you are judging. Is that judgement based on proper information and devoid of all the negativities that you just mentioned?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "Do you truly believe that any Christian or other person who believes marriage should be between man and woman only have taken that stance because they all have beliefs based on fear, ignorance, and misinformation?"

      I challenge you to come up with one single reason why gay marriage is a bad idea without using the bible.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • J.W

      So one day the entire world will be gay if we support gay marriage now.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
  15. Thom

    Bibles make great toilet paper.

    August 1, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      Not really, it's not good at cleaning off the s*hit and it leaves a residue that promotes a rash and if you're not careful you can pass it on to your family and they can pass it on to others. I think the best bet is to burn it to be safe.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Jesus Christ

      I agree. I didn't write the Bible. Man did.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Primewonk

      V of R is right. I had an emergency once and ripped out a few pages of Acts. I must have wiped too hard, because all of a sudden I had Paul in my ass.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
  16. Reality

    Sent from my local Chick-fil-A:

    The owner of Chick-fil-A as does R. Albert Mohler Jr suffer from the Three B Syndrome, Bred, Born and Brainwashed in red-neck Christianity. We should try to cure all those who are suffering which effects about 30% of the human race.

    The Cure in less time than it takes to eat my chicken sandwich:



    Added details available at no extra charge.

    August 1, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • Reality

      Oops, make that "affects" about 30% of the human race.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:16 am |
  17. Jesus Christ

    I am amazed that all the Belief blog has on it anymore are articles about gay people and how much they should be hated. I think christians have reached a new low. They hate, they judge (I thought that was my job) and they condemn (oops, my job again). It's just like the whole temple incident again. Looks like I'm going to have to get out my whip and kick some dumb christian a** for going against my teachings and defiling my Fathers temple. And for those of you that don't get it, my Father's Temple is this world, this earth. Stop the hatred and bigotry before you all really find out what h*ll is all about.

    August 1, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Well, as has been pointed out, it's a "belief blog" not a Christian blog. So, anyone can post their beliefs here. Secondly, Jesus didn't come to judge but to save. Thirdly, God's temple is not the earth, it lies within the heart. So, utter and complete failure but thanks for playing.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @Bill Deacon

      Just where exactly in the heart does that temple exist, science hasn't found it yet, maybe you could lend them a hand?

      August 1, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • No Truth, Just Claims


      But Jesus is coming to Judge the living and the dead right? Then don't act like he is all loving and non-judgemental.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Jesus Christ

      Bill Deacon, It looks like you are a better expert at my own teachings then I am. How nice. I'm so glad that you are the new god. But actually, you're obviously interpreting the ma-made bible to make everything fit the way you want it to. I do INDEED judge mankind and how exactly can I save any of you when you're so hateful and cruel to each other? I know that my Father promised not to flood the world again, but maybe a good solar flare would be helpful...
      Where did I ever say that God's temple was in the heart? I mean really????

      August 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Jacob

      Bill is just regurgitating what his youth pastor told him. Doubt he's ever thought much about how empty the rhetoric is.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Just call me Lucifer

      Its not so bad.... we got Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Bakker and Ted Haggard (oops.... that was gonna be a surprise).

      August 1, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Howard

      God help us and keep us from the people who think their doing God's work.
      – Dean Winchester (Supernatural)

      August 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Tgee

      Dear Jesus,

      It is very obvious that you 'do not' know what the bible says or what you are really fighting.. Cathy never said that he has any negativity in his heart against gay people.. He simply stated what his 'personal' belief is in marraiage and 'what" the LORD says.. It is his "right" to speak what he believes just as every gay person believes it is their 'right' to have a relationship with whom they want.. So tell me who is trying to impose a belief system..You and others do not have to agree with his personal beliefs but it is just as much his right as anyone else to speak what he believes.. If people who are gay want to live how they want that is OK BUT please stop trying to make everyone else in the world except things that they don't believe in.. It does not mean they are against you they simply don't believe what you do.. If you want acceptance then it is time for you to accept others who do not agree with you..

      August 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
  18. PrimeNumber

    I remember being five years old and sitting in the kitchen of a restaurant with a catholic priest, my dad, and a black mass server. Many years later I asked my dad about this. He told me that after church we had gone into this joint to get breakfast. The other partons began giving us disapproving glances. The manager approached and said "You (white) guys can eat in the main section but HE can eat in the kitchen." So we all ate in the kitchen. THis was genuine descrimination. Has CHick-fil-A refused employment to gays? Have they refused service to them or isolated them to the kitchen?

    August 1, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      They CLEARLY voiced their opinion on bigotry.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • tallulah13

      No, but Chick-fil-a has contributed millions of dollars to political groups that seek to prevent gays from receiving equal rights. That's real discrimination, too.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      No tallulah that is political activism. Just because you don't like their stance doesn't make them bigots. The charge of "hater", "bigot" etc is simply demonizing your opponent.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • BRC

      When the position they actively support is discrimanatory in nature, THAT makes them bigots. Trying to control the lives of gay people by restriced their oportunites compared to straight people is discrimination. Becuase it is done without there being any genuin need or benefit, it is bigotry. People don't like being called bigots, stop doing bigotted things.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • LinCA

      @Bill Deacon

      You said, "No tallulah that is political activism. Just because you don't like their stance doesn't make them bigots. The charge of "hater", "bigot" etc is simply demonizing your opponent."
      Calling them bigots is calling them for what they are. No sense in sugar-coating it. Their goal is to set secular law to adhere to their religious teachings. They aim to force their religion on everyone. That is textbook bigotry.

      The stance they have is based on hate. Hate for those different from them. Scapegoating a disliked minority. They may claim that they hate nobody, but isn't it the christians that claim that they "hate the sin"? How convenient that christians also defined it as a sin in the first place.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Rebel4Christ

      That's dumb because it's not like Chick fil a doesn't serve gay people!!!

      August 1, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • No Truth, Just Claims


      On this point I agree, Chic-a-Fila should not be barred from doing business based on its views alone as lone as it treats employees and customers equal regardless of religion, orientation ect. The mayors statements and actions are concerning but I think the courts with the help of the const.itution will sort this out.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
  19. anchorite

    How is it the only "liberties" conservatives seem to want are the freedoms to take freedoms away from others? Can't be gay, can't boycott fast foot. Let's see a fast food chain talk about how Christianity is immoral and see what happens.

    August 1, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      You can be gay, you just can't be married, we voted it down. You can boycott fast food, you just can't call on your alderman to prohibit someone else from having it, that's our law. You can call Christians immoral and most will agree with you. The basic tenet of Christianity is that we are all immoral. What's the issue now?

      August 1, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Huebert

      You also voted down civil rights for black people for years. Are you sure you want to go with that argument?

      August 1, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • LinCA

      @Bill Deacon

      You said, "You can be gay, you just can't be married, we voted it down."
      In time I bet you'll find that that vote violated the constitution.

      You said, "You can call Christians immoral and most will agree with you. The basic tenet of Christianity is that we are all immoral. What's the issue now?"
      I'm glad you realize that, but why do you keep showing the rest of us that you are? How come it seems impossible for some christians to learn from their own fuck-ups? How come it's so hard for some christians to realize that not everyone still believes their fairy tale? How come some christians still insist on forcing their moronic views on the rest of us?

      Don't get me wrong, you are free to believe whatever nonsense you want. You are free to live your life by you precious little fairy tale. You are not free to expect anyone else to do the same. Quite a few of us have outgrown, and no longer believe the stories of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and other mythical creatures.

      So how about you keep your religious bullshit within your religion, without trying to poison our secular society with them.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Huebert, It's not my argument. anchorite says he isn't allowed to be gay and I am certainly not trying to stop him from being gay. I am merely reporting the condition of the law in this country as voted, again not an argument. As Lin points out, it may be overturned in court (wouldn't surprise me at this point). As to morality, many people do learn and become better than they were. Those who claim exemption from sin are most likely to be inundated with it.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @ Bill Deacon
      "Those who claim exemption from sin are most likely to be inundated with it."

      Really? How so?

      August 1, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      If you walk into a given bar on any Friday night and ask "Who here is an alcoholic?" you will likely get no response. Go into any AA meeting and ask the same question and every hand will go up. It's called denial. Even the most holy of saints and monks will acknowledge the depth and horror of their sin. Ask any seexually promiscuous person of any persuasion, most will say they are only acting naturally. Yet the chaste person knows that lust is rampant. The only honest man is the one who will acknowledge that he has the capacity to lie. Need any more examples? Can you deny your own sin? I certainly cannot.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • No Truth, Just Claims

      "You can be gay, you just can't be married, we voted it down."


      We cannot allow our rights and freedoms to be voted one, that is why the founding fathers came up with the Bill Of Rights. The courts will eventually right this wrong.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • No Truth, Just Claims


      Drunks go to bars,

      Alcoholics go to meetings.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • J.W

      So if the public comes to be in support of gay marriage that will make it ok? If the public voted for it would that make you change your mind?

      August 1, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I'm fairly certain the courts will eventually overturn the various marriage acts in different states. I am not arguing in defense of them. I am merely stating them as fact at this time. Anchorite asserts that he is not allowed to be gay and that is patently false and overly dramatic.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "You can be gay, you just can't be married, we voted it down."

      We once voted down interracial marriage. Didn't make that right either. Bigotry always loses in the end, and any poll shows that those opposing gay marriage will soon be on the wrong side of history. Fortunately for those os us who don't hide our ignorance, hate, and bigotry behind an ancient text, you're a dinosaur and will soon be extinct.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      JW – It would not make me change my mind personally although I would recognize it as the law of the land. There are many laws which I personally do not agree with but still abide by. I believe Justice Roberts was correct when he recently stated that the duty of the court does not extend to protecting the people from the ignorance of their own electoral choices. I also believe, as George Washington noted that “Mankind when left to themselves, are unfit for their own Government”. So, in my opinion, the government can enact any insanity conceivable by the mind of man

      August 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Condemning me and my kind to extinction. Is that your version of casting us into hell?

      August 1, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Who's 'condemning' anyone to extinction? That's your words, not mine. I'm only reflecting the obvious trends in any poll on the subject. If you don't like the facts, your more than welcoming to continue to keep your head in the sand.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Well you backed off of that quicker than a Democrat who threatened to violate the first amendment. Nice work.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • No Truth, Just Claims

      Condemning me and my kind to extinction. Is that your version of casting us into hell?


      I know you Christians REALLY want to feel persecuted because it makes you feel like you are suffering on your gods behalf but this is rediculous. No on is saying you should be tortured for your opinion, that is the realm of religious dogma. We are not damning you, we are saying your opinion is wrong, we are not threatening you for being wrong. Saying you are wrong and saying you should suffer for BEING wrong are not the same thing. Nice try.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Bill, I didn't back off anything. maybe you should try and read what I actually wrote and not try to weave your own persecution complex into it.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • derp

      "Ask any seexually promiscuous person of any persuasion, most will say they are only acting naturally. Yet the chaste person knows that lust is rampant"

      Religious drivel.

      Having frequent s e x is not lust, or immorality, or any form of "sin".

      Those are man made constructs.

      The entire species viability is determined to succeed and continue only if we have s e x.

      Your silly myth has demonized the one things that they know we have an undeniable biological natural drive to do above all others.

      It is the perfect tool for controlling the ignorant masses.

      August 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
  20. Ken Mills

    I am truly amazed by how open minded liberals are.... as long as you agree with them.

    August 1, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • midwest rail

      Says the guy with the knee jerk, lump-'em-all-together att-itude. Hilarious stuff.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • tallulah13

      At least we have open minds, Ken. You might give it a try.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • tallulah13

      It's funny. I'm not really a liberal, but to Kenny here, anyone who disagrees with him must be a liberal.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Jacob

      Beat that straw man to death Ken.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      Hey Ken! You'd be amazed at a lot of things if you actually thought and explored this wonderful existence.

      August 1, 2012 at 11:08 am |
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
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.