skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Chick-fil-A Controversy Brings ‘Em Out On Both Sides

What came first, the Chick-fil-A recantation — or the protests?

Let’s back up a bit.

Dan Cathy, president of the national fast-food chain with 1,600 restaurants, caused a ruckus recently by telling the Baptist Press that Chick-fil-A supports the “biblical definition of the family unit.”

Cathy elaborated that the country is “Inviting God’s judgment on our own nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ ”

Gay groups responded as you might expect … with outrage. Mayors of New York, Chicago and Boston questioned whether Chick-fil-A permits should be pulled. But today, supporters of "traditional" marriage turned out at restaurants in San Diego and elsewhere in the country to back Cathy's sentiments.

The chain, meanwhile, has attempted to defuse the controversy. In a statement, the company said the culture and service tradition in Chick-fil-A restaurants is to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

It continues, “Our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

But gay advocates in San Diego and across the country aren’t letting it go.

They plan to counter what they call Cathy’s homophobic sentiments with “National Same-Sex Kiss Day.”

The smooching protests are planned on Friday at Chick-fil-A franchises in Oceanside and in the Midway District of San Diego. San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality and the political non-profit Canvass for a Cause are organizing the protests.

Rachel Schoma, executive director of Canvass for a Cause, says plans for Friday include picketing and signs, but same-sex kissing is also welcome.

“This is a celebration of the fact that all couples and all love is equal … we’re going to go and demonstrate that unity and that love at Chick-fil-A,” said Schoma. “They said something hateful that hurt a lot of people — and we’re going to be responding with love and solidarity.”

An employee at the San Diego Chick-Fil-A said the restaurant is not commenting on the protests, but they will be serving everyone who comes in.

City news Service contributed to this story

Comments

Avatar for user 'lavender_lucy'

lavender_lucy | August 1, 2012 at 9:03 a.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

The US Constitution guarantees the right for any person to have their own opinion. This is a privately owned business, they have the right to their own belief and those who disagree should remember that the Constitution upholds THEIR right to their own opinion. Since when is it politically incorrect to have an opinion. I am so terribly disappointed in the gay community for their childish behavior.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | August 1, 2012 at 11:28 a.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Why is this here under "Arts and Life" when I don't EVEN recall seeing ANYTHING by Angela or Beth about the "controversial" staged version of TOM SAWYER at the Joan B. Kroc Center, earlier this year???

My educated guess is that both this and the other's omission are ideologically motivated--to say the least!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | August 1, 2012 at 2:01 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

It's news media, not science, and it's therefore impossible for any organization with a conscious editor to not be ideologically motivated. Our role as News Media Consumer is to choose to patronize the organization whose ideologies most represent ours. That's how the game is played.

That said, although he doesn't speak for everyone who works for his chicken sandwich business, Dan Cathy is on the wrong side of history. Therefore, I could really care less what politicians want to tell him that, because they would be right. And there's nothing wrong with being right.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'HarryStreet'

HarryStreet | August 1, 2012 at 4:23 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm sure if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was paid on company performance he'd have kept his opinion to himself. CEOs are guaranteed salary and stock options via contract. Their pay is not affected by performance. The people who will suffer are the employees in those restaurants if they are closed down. In short, this guy had nothing financial to personally lose, so don't be so quick to applaud him for standing by his beliefs. I'm sure stockholders expected better of him.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | August 1, 2012 at 4:52 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

I applaud him for speaking his mind without concern of profit, or lack thereof. It's just unfortunate that he's wrong about this particular issue in 2012, like how the CEO of Woolworth's would have been wrong in 1960 had he spoken out about how great of an idea it was to segregate blacks and whites at his lunch counters.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Willard'

Willard | August 1, 2012 at 5:23 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5Million to anti-gay groups including groups that use discredited "pray the gay away"therapy. President Dan Cathy says that if you support gay marriage you are "inviting God's Judgment" and that "we shake our fists at him" when we do.Forbes reported that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination and described them as a "cult" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html
Hilarious hypocrisy of the right whining about boycotting chick,all while boycotting many dozens of companies that might have the slightest appearance of being gay friendly. A fried hate-sandwich is bad for your heart.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | August 1, 2012 at 6:55 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Lavender_lucy wrote:

*"The US Constitution guarantees the right for any person to have their own opinion. This is a privately owned business, they have the right to their own belief and those who disagree should remember that the Constitution upholds THEIR right to their own opinion. Since when is it politically incorrect to have an opinion. I am so terribly disappointed in the gay community for their childish behavior.*"

Lucy, your one-sided post implies the company is the only one entitled to an opinion. People protesting and boycotting are also entitled to their opinion AND their right to protest.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | August 1, 2012 at 10:36 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

ILK, not the "wrong side of history." You are wrong. Maybe on the losing side of a social trend, but then again, only time will tell. Afterall, this is really not politics, as much as they want to make out to be. And then again, in the future, there will be change again.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | August 1, 2012 at 10:40 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Duck, aren't most posts here "one-sided," including yours and mine???

By the way people, when I first saw this I thought it said "Chick A Flick" and it was by Beth Accomando. lol

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | August 1, 2012 at 10:43 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

@WILLARD, have YOU ever eaten at Wendy's or Carl's Jr? Shopped at Walmart?
If you have then you are not one to be calling people hypocrites.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | August 2, 2012 at 7:38 a.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Wanting same-sex marriage to be recognized by the State as valid in all the ways way that the State recognizes every other legal marriage is a trend? Wow! That sure is one huge, long-lasting trend we're talking about! Something that millions of people want and support? I mean, you do know it's already legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden, right?

How old do you have to be to perceive this as a passing trend?

I don't even understand how this is still an issue. We know marriage doesn't need to have anything to do with The God in order to be legal. We know you don't need to produce offspring in order for the marriage to be legal. Monogamy and commitment between couples is something that is encouraged because it is generally thought to be beneficial to society.

So what, I ask, is the problem?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | August 2, 2012 at 7:45 a.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sharkysw9'

sharkysw9 | August 2, 2012 at 1:49 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

( )

Avatar for user 'Willard'

Willard | August 2, 2012 at 5:41 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Why is Multi-billion dollar fast-food chain,Chick fil A, bullying small business owners?and what does the A stand for anyway?http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1674889308/a-defiant-dude
what about those Facebook accounts? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/07/25/chick-fil-a-has-completely-lost-control-of-its-facebook Why do conservatives feel sorry for multi-billionaires?With the agenda of the Mitt and friends we can all look forward to good jobs at Chick fil A!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | August 3, 2012 at noon ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Will CDM and his ex con boyfriend be participating in the "kiss off"?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | August 3, 2012 at 2:38 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Missionaccomplished, do you actually believe that gay marriage is a "trend?"

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | August 3, 2012 at 11:36 p.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Trend was probably the wrong word, It's more a political tactic than anything else at this point in time.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | August 4, 2012 at 8:05 a.m. ― 2 years, 1 month ago

Missionaccomplished, when you say it's a political tactic, are you referring to Obama's recent (or Mayor Sanders' somewhat less recent) public shift in perspective on the issue, or are you saying that same-sex marriage itself is some sort of strategy designed by political opportunists?

I believe the current trend toward same-sex marriage rights is a referendum on the will of the people, who are slowly growing more comfortable with the idea as it slowly makes more and more sense, and certain citizens (read: the elderly) become less and scared by this perceived threat.

But if you think it's more of a strategy designed by the rulers than it is the will of the ruled, I'd really like to hear what you've used to rationalize that theory.

( | suggest removal )