Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 22 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Chick-fil-a president deletes gay marriage remark


ATLANTA (AP) — The president of the fast-food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A has once again injected himself into the gay marriage debate, this time criticizing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Dan Cathy posted a comment Wednesday on Twitter criticizing a pair of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Those decisions will extend federal recognition to same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal, and will add California — the most populous state — to the 12 others in that category.

"Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies," Cathy wrote, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://bit.ly/12qjRKF ). The post was later deleted.

Chick-fil-A issued a statement acknowledging the post, saying Cathy was offering a personal comment.

"Dan recognizes his views do not necessarily represent the views of all Chick-fil-A customers, restaurant owners and employees, so he removed the tweet to eliminate any confusion," the company said.

Cathy's view on gay marriage has created controversy for the Atlanta-based company best known for its fried chicken sandwiches and closing on Sundays. Last year, Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family." In a later radio interview, he ratcheted up the rhetoric: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."'

Public officials in Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago told the company it was no not welcome, though the firm said it set a one-day sales record when after its supporters — including many religious conservatives — held a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" last year. Gay marriage supporters held a "Kiss In" at the restaurants to protest Cathy's views.


Information from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, http://www.ajc.com

 Print   Email   Comment | View 22 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
CartwrightPark wrote:
What's this country come to? Cant even be pro traditional family without pro gays calling you bigot. SMH.
on June 28,2013 | 06:30AM
9ronboz wrote:
on June 28,2013 | 06:59AM
fat_dad wrote:
You know 50 or 60 years ago biracial families were not considered 'traditional families'. You ever wonder if you are on the wrong side of history now?
on June 28,2013 | 07:20AM
8082062424 wrote:
Nothing to do with history. do you believe everyone has to toss there values and standards aside for any one group be it a faith group or the gay group. We all have the right to set our own moral compass. this is america we all have the right to express what we feel. 50 years from now There will be two sides to this issue same as today. with some luck 50 years from now both sides of this issue will learn to accept both side have every right to there feeling
on June 28,2013 | 08:05AM
Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps in the interest of honesty and clarity we should avoid innocent sounding dodge word/euphemisms, starting with returning the child-like innocence to the word " gay ". Homosexual is a perfectly valid word that does not lend itself to any sort of evasive ambiguity. Those interested in an honest dialogue should not shrink from clarity in the choice of words to be used.
on June 28,2013 | 08:56AM
hawaiikone wrote:
There is little interest in either honesty or clarity. The standard responses seem to be "bigot", or "homophobic", and other similar names, typically invoked whenever questions are asked, or objections are raised It's been a successful strategy, as many chose not to be insulted rather than continue to participate in the debate.
on June 28,2013 | 11:27AM
fat_dad wrote:
You are making a straw man argument. Of course everyone has a right to their values, opinions, and standards. There are still people today whose 'values' are against 'mixing of the races', however, American society as a whole has moved past these 'standards' as you might say. I was merely asking a question...have you ever wondered if in the future American society will see same-sex marriage as a non-issue and those who are against it will be a small quiet minority?
on June 28,2013 | 02:31PM
hawaiikone wrote:
By whom?
on June 28,2013 | 09:42AM
fat_dad wrote:
You know 50 or 60 years ago biracial families were not considered 'traditional families'. You ever wonder if you are on the wrong side of history now?
on June 28,2013 | 07:10AM
Anonymous wrote:
Attempting to equate the legitimate civil rights of Americans of African Ancestry to the sexual preferences of homosexuals is fundamentally dishonest. A man can choose neither his parents nor his race but a man CAN choose whether or not to commit homosexual acts.
on June 28,2013 | 08:48AM
grantos wrote:
fundamentally? hahah what a joke
on June 28,2013 | 08:54AM
fat_dad wrote:
Not talking about civil rights of African Americans. Talking about universal human rights. If a biracial couple were denied the right to marry wouldn't the caucasian partner's rights be equally violated? As far as your statement goes, of course a person can choose to commit homosexual acts or not; but committing homosexual acts and marriage are two different things. The question is: Is it right for the government to prevent 2 adults from entering a legal contract of marriage together based on their gender (remember, that is what marriage is in the eyes of the government, a contract). My small government libertarian bias makes me think no. I keep listening to arguments as to why civil marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples and so far none have convinced me.
on June 28,2013 | 03:15PM
copperwire9 wrote:
The 'Biblical definition of a family,' eh? Multiple wives, selling daughters...Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Caleb, Ezra, Manasseh, Simeon, and Zedekiah are a few of the Bible's polygamists. Is that what "Mr. Cathy" is promoting? . . .It's biblical (Exodus 21:17) to sell a daughter as a slave, with the understanding that she is not to 'go free' as the male slaves should be able to do. . . .Or we could perhaps consider the beloved-by-Christianity King David, who loved Jonathan "better than any woman" - even better than his own many wives (2 Samuel, chapter 1). . . .Mr. Cathy seems to have done a lot of his own cherry-picking about what God wants, then chastising others who have done the same.
on June 28,2013 | 07:34AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Which is precisely what you are doing now,
on June 28,2013 | 09:43AM
copperwire9 wrote:
Not really. I was responding to cherry-picked information by saying that very different - diametrically opposed - perspectives could also be cherry-picked from the same 'good book.' People use the bible all the time to prove this point or that. In early Genesis you can find references to the 'gods' mating with humans. It's a fine set of books for certain things, but often useless as a tool to prove this point or that one in terms of social mores.
on June 28,2013 | 02:41PM
mikethenovice wrote:
The gays have the most disposable income. The is most advantages to the restaurant industry.
on June 28,2013 | 07:42AM
mikethenovice wrote:
Keep it safe like me. Happy And Gay for us all, period
on June 28,2013 | 07:43AM
mikethenovice wrote:
I don't care what the gays do as long as they keep the touching in public mum.
on June 28,2013 | 07:44AM
onwardupward wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on June 28,2013 | 08:21AM
8082062424 wrote:
tell that to a bunch a first graders. two women had it in there head to put on a show in front of first grade class room. of course the kids seen it as weird and strange. so to push it more these two women brought a book to be read to the first grade class my two daddy's or mommy's some thing along that line. the other parents did not want that read to there kids which is there right. of course that rest o f the kids made comments like your weird you need a mom and a dad not two mom's etc. things went from bad to worst one of the moms got upset she tried to tell one of the kids that it normal to have two moms this kid pretty much told her no it not normal. that mom made the mistake of putting her hands on that kid and shook her. those two moms now can not go to the class and have to pick up there child at the office.
on June 28,2013 | 09:44AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
So those Heterosexuals want to make out and have Children, that's not Equality, Gays have a right to do the same. Equal is Equal they "claim". They are in their own fantasy world. Pity.
on June 28,2013 | 11:32AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Foot-in-mouth disease really hurts when it migrates to your wallet.
on June 28,2013 | 10:08AM
konag43 wrote:
it's a pity that just because you own a business you don't have a right to say what you truly feel just because the gay people get offended. but hey gay people what you do and say offends us hetersexuals.
on June 28,2013 | 11:57AM
fat_dad wrote:
Business owners can say whatever they want on their personal time. What they are not allowed to do is create a discriminatory environment within the work environment of their business. The chick-fil-a pres can tweet whatever he wants on his personal account, but doing so from the chick-fil-a account would be a bad idea.
on June 28,2013 | 03:19PM
Breaking News