NOM BLOG

National Eat at Chick-Fil-A Day on Wednesday!

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Thanks to your recent efforts at DumpStarbucks.com and DumpGeneralMills.com, we've shown the cultural elite, the gay millionaires who fund anti-marriage initiatives, and the biased media that the defenders of marriage are willing to put our money where our mouth is.

Well, this Wednesday, we have a chance to do it again—and this time even more literally—by coming out in support of National Eat at Chick-fil-A Day.

Imagine if folks all across the country united together in support of heroes like Dan and Truett Cathy that stand for strengthening marriage and family!

Imagine the potential impact of the message that companies favoring the radical redefinition of marriage risk fallout with their customers—combined with the message that heroes who stand for marriage and family cannot be silenced!

Imagine how clearly that message would be heard across the nation if Chick-fil-A reported record sales this Wednesday!

Well, let's not just imagine it—let's make it happen.

On his radio show this week, Mike Huckabee called on his listeners to support the principled stand of the Cathy family by making this coming Wednesday (July 25th) "National Eat at Chick-fil-A Day."

Please join me this Wednesday in supporting this courageous company, while at the same time sending a powerful message of support to every individual and every company with the courage to stand for marriage.

Visit your local Chick-fil-A restaurant for lunch or dinner on Wednesday. Better yet— stop and tell the manager that you're there to honor and respect the integrity, faith and courage of Dan Cathy and the Cathy family.

Show your support! Eat Mor Chikin!

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

88 Comments

  1. Garrett
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    So ... are you dropping the whole "corporate neutrality" thing, then?

  2. Joey
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, I'll be at Starbucks that day.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    @Garrett,

    The difference is that Chick-fil-a is a privately held corporation; whereas each of the corporations that are supporting marriage corruption are traded publicly.

    That and the fact that Chick-fil-a is staying true to the ideology it was founded on; whereas those pandering to the decadent elite pimping marriage corruption are going whichever way the wind blows them.

    My household will be at Chick-fil-a on Wednesday; and whenever called upon to do so.

  4. Johan de Vries
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is anything but hypocritical. NOM has spend weeks if not months working on two boycotts, plastered news about those all over the site all because Starbucks and General Mills should have stayed 'neutral' on marriage. Yet now that a company speaks out for "traditional" marriage they are happy to advertise it for a campaign supporting the company because of it.

    So much for principles it seems?

  5. Scott Wooledge
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Wait, I'm confused.

    Do we still want General Mills and Starbucks (and Microsoft and Apple and Facebook and Google and Nike and CBS network and Entertainment Arts...) to remain "corporately neutral?"

    Hasn't Chick-Fil-A taken a side?

  6. Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    The media forced Chick fil a to tell their position. It is no secret that they are a Christian Compny. The gay agenda wants to force everybody to accept gays.

  7. Johan de Vries
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    And Chick-fil-A has every right to hold their opinion as far as I am concerned. But that has nothing to do with the issue that NOM is apparently taking a "do as we say, not as we do" stance here.

  8. Adam and Eve
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Check out this propaganda on NBC...

    http://youtu.be/lXbTDQcvhyM

  9. delainie
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    How hard is this to understand people? I know I'd rather not know the stance of a corp, but if they are going to publicize one side or the other, then it is only right to support the opinion we agree with.. Simple as that. I see no "double standard" / "do as we say, don't so as we do here" by NOM. There's enough drama out there, kids, you don't have to try to make some up where there isn't any, I just wish there was a Chick-fil-a out here.

  10. Me
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Come on people, this is America. NOM has the right to stand for what they believe just as you and I do. If they choose to support a company for standing up for what they believe, or boycott others for not, it's their purgative.

  11. Reformed
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Poor chickens! First the cows are saying to eat more chicken. Now NOM is doing it too. If God's eye is on the sparrow, I wonder what he thinks when chickens are put into the chicken sandwich maker.

  12. LEO
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    GOOD JOB NOM!, it's time to even the playing field...
    The appallling level of disrepect by marriage curruption supporters and those businesses whom sponsors them, towards business consumers, must END.

  13. Rover Serton
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    I won't go on Wednesday, I'm going on Sunday, after church.... oh wait...

    Looks like it's a starbucks day.

  14. Annette
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    OMG....we went to a CFA in southern NJ today and it was MOBBED! We had to come back a half hr, fortunately we were able to kill time at a local yard sale.

    If it was that bad today, what will it be like Wednesday!? Friends across the country told me their CFA's were packed today too. WT....?

  15. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Reward CF for maintaining the marriage status quo (different than promoting a ban on something like "gay" marriage, which doesn't exist, since gay people can marry) and vote w/ our dollars those companies who want to neuter marriage, which affects all marriages & kinship relationships, and not for the good. Simple.

  16. Lessa
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    This isn't hypocritical, this is supporting a company that is doing the right thing! Morally that is. We support them just like people who choose to support immoral acts. There is still freedom to do that in this country right?

  17. Theresa Henderson
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    http:// www. getreligion.org/2012/07/wheres-the-beef-what-the-chick-fil-a-boss-really-said/

    QUIT BEING SO MANIPULATED BY THE NEWS MEDIA. Read the above website and send your protests to CNN for quoting out of context.

  18. Me
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    Seems as if they have thought of a good way to make extra money on Wednesday.

  19. Publius
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    From what I have been able to discover, the apparently unforgivable sin committed by Chick-fil-A is that their president stated he supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.” The company, which is privately held and family owned, also invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation. There was no mention of using company money for political campaign purposes, unlike Starbucks. For the secular sin of their owner saying he supports the biblical definition of the family, the Mayor of Boston wants to keep the Chick-fil-A chain out of Boston, giving new meaning the old phrase “banned in Boston.”

    In any event, all companies can support legal causes and customers can react accordingly. Whether the city of Boston can legally ban Chick-fil-A remains to be seen.

  20. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    Theresa, that article does not address his comment on the Ken Coleman Show that was "…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' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about" The Link you posted only focuses and addresses the Benign Baptist Press article. The Coleman show Comment is what triggered the Animus I have been reading.

  21. Publius
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    “Without further defining his plot to block private parties from entering into contractual agreements, it would appear the mayor [of Boston] is relying on bluster, the potential for bureaucratic harassment and official inflammation of a mob mentality to intimidate the chain from entering “his” fiefdom. And if that’s the case, the mayor is inconsistent and gutless if he does not apply the same exclusion to Boston’s prominent Catholic Archdiocese, as well as to numerous other denominations and religions that oppose “same sex marriage” based on religious teachings and personal moral convictions.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/menino-chick-fil-a-stance-shows-guns-aren-t-only-freedom-progressives-threaten

  22. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Lessa,
    it is Hypocritical and Unethical to Send out Letters demanding Companies remain Neutral and not take a Stance or Position, then Boycott Companies that have taken the oppositions side while applauding a company that has taken yours. It is Freedom for Companies to make their own decisions, for whichever side they choose, as it is Freedom for all people to make their own choices about which companies to support or not for whatever reason they choose. It just is not possible to explain that it is moral to threaten companies with a boycott if they do not remain neutral while applauding a company that does not.

  23. Sharon
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    I don't get people are against the activity that NOM stands for and come up in our place to insult! You have your activist site, get on it and vent there. If you see people who are against you slandering, report them for sure. And then after you report them, stay in your tennis court while we play in ours!

  24. Publius
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    Speaking of "Hypocritical and Unethical" does anyone see a problem with the Mayor of Boston using his public office to ban Chick-a-Fil from his city based on liberal concepts of tolerance and inclusiveness?

    A private boycott is one thing. Government banning is quite another. This is where political correctness leads. See
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/when-political-correctness-runs-amok-it-will-look-like-the-mayor-of-boston/

  25. Publius
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    Make that Chick-fil-A. There isn't one near me, but I may seek one out just to show Mayor of Boston that he does not have dictatorial powers.

  26. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:58 am | Permalink

    Publius,
    What the Mayor of Boston stated is also unethical. He may speak out against Chick-Fil-A, as either a Private Citizen or a Politician, he could also have chosen to place a vote in front of the Citizens of Boston to see if they wished the Restaurant or Not if he felt strongly enough about it. Using His office to make a unilateral decision about a Private Business is plainly unethical.

  27. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    Micheal:

    The bottom line, those companies who are confused on morality should remain neutral, those who are not, should support and defend morality when it comes to marriage and sexuality, period.

    Mike,
    So that we are clear, more than 97% of Americans do not consider themself homosexual or involved in a same sex relationship. It is safe to say that most of Gay Mills, Starbucks consumers reflect the general population, so why would they sponsor homosexuality in disregards and to devalue their general consumers? From a business perspective, the sponsorship doesn't make any sense. From a consumer perspective, those businesses that intentionally insults and bully their consumer base, seriouly jeopardizes their existence and relevancy.

    Mike, you guys believe your side has relevancy promoting SSM and gay identity politics. Promarriage proponents and the like, man and woman relationships supporters, do not feel two very different institutions ( marriage concepts) can not coexist. Rightly so, gay-relationships do not make sense when you consider all the pitfalls and disadventages, but also creeply perversed in every visual senses.
    MIke Said:
    "Lessa,
    it is Hypocritical and Unethical to Send out Letters demanding Companies remain Neutral and not take a Stance or Position, then Boycott Companies that have taken the oppositions side while applauding a company that has taken yours. It is Freedom for Companies to make their own decisions, for whichever side they choose, as it is Freedom for all people to make their own choices about which companies to support or not for whatever reason they choose. It just is not possible to explain that it is moral to threaten companies with a boycott if they do not remain neutral while applauding a company that does not."

    Thus attempting to balance both sides position( for and against gay-marriage) is futile since the weight of your argument does not stand up to scrutiny as explainded above, for a viable position.

  28. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:09 am | Permalink

    Sadly, being Ethical is seems to be an Issue whether Liberal or Conservative, Business or Private Interest Group. Career Politicians seem to be the Worst Offenders. The Democrats claim to be "Tolerant of All", "Care about the Middle and Lower Class" and love "Education". And yet they are intolerant of others, use the Middle and Lower Class as a crutch, and underfund Schools. The Republicans claim to be "Morally Upright", "Care about the Middle Class and Small Business" and "Education". And yet they are caught in Sex Scandals and illegal campaign contributions, work against the Middle Class and Small Businesses costing them more, and defund Schools. Being a Politician itself is an issue, since there are virtually none whom I would call Statesmen. They are all bought and paid for by Private Companies, Private Citizens and Special Interest Groups.

  29. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    My edited version:

    Micheal:
    The bottom line, those companies who are confused on morality should remain neutral, those who are not, should support and defend morality when it comes to marriage and sexuality, period.
    Mike,
    So that we are clear, more than 97% of Americans do not identify themselves as homosexual or involved in a same sex relationship. It is safe to say that most of Gay Mills’, Starbucks’ consumers reflect the general population, so why would they sponsor homosexuality in disregards and to devalue their general consumers? From a business perspective, the sponsorship doesn't make any sense. From a consumer perspective, those businesses that intentionally insults and bully their consumer base, seriously jeopardizes their existence and relevancy.
    Mike, you guys believe your side has relevancy promoting SSM and gay identity politics. Marriage proponents and the like, man and woman relationships supporters, do not feel two very different institutions (marriage concepts) cannot coexist. Rightly so, gay-relationships do not make sense when you consider all the pitfalls and disadvantages, but also creepily perverted in every visual senses.

  30. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    Leo, by your statement either a company picks your side, or remains silent. That is not Freedom. That is not Free Enterprise. Either a Company is allowed to speak out either way, or it is Hypocritical and Unethical. You are trying to spin it into some Moral Position, it is not. It is ethically wrong, no matter what spin it gets. Just because you choose to disregard it and call that scrutiny is irrelevant to me or my point. It is what it is.

    If a Company speaks out for a Position I fail to see how that is bullying if they do not force people to subscribe to their position. It is bullying to try and force a Company into silence while applauding a company for speaking out. I truthfully do not care either way about Same Sex Marriage. Whether it is allowed or not does not Personally affect me in any way. I also understand that Homosexuals make up a small percentage of the population. However, I do feel that is insufficient to base laws based because of their Population Size. That is not the way Just Law works. However, it is others right to feel as they wish. From a Business sense, it is up to the Companies to choose what they feel is a position worth having. I do not see a Company supporting Homosexuality as devaluing me or my wife, any more than I see a Christian Company devaluing me or my Religion. If you feel that way, it is your right. Just as it is your right to shop elsewhere.

    As for for having a viable position, your position is that the Companies should not have the Freedom to speak unless they speak out for your side. That is tyranny. I also would not lump me into the "you guys" and "your side" status. I do not agree with all of the Same Sex Marriage Supporters. Nor do I agree with all of your side either. I do believe in Freedom. As for their visual sense, well I personally am repulsed and nauseated by Obese people and Couples. They disgust me. And yet I do not try to stop them from being together. Same Sex Couples make me a little jittery, and yet I also will not try and stop them. As for perversion, well, Everyone can agree Pedophilia, Bestiality and Incest and the like are ethically wrong. However, outside that, one persons perversion is another's Friday night. And as long as they are not doing it on my living room floor I really don't care what they do in their own house.

    I am able to see the flaws in Both sides. I am saddened you are unable to do so.

  31. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    Micheal,

    Keep in mind:

    NOM and It's supporters feels society should not embrace SSM or promote it, and are working to make sure Americans do not... We feel the opposition does not have a viable argument to play the over rated "fear and balance" game. SSM and traditional marriage can not exist on the same planet without affecting eachother. The difference between right and wrong; companies are wrong when they promote gay identity politics, and are right when they support marriage and the development of sustainable families.

  32. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:44 am | Permalink

    Mike,
    We are in a culture war, get over your ideology on this issue...

  33. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 3:00 am | Permalink

    LEO,

    I understand all of that. I truly do. Nor would I wish you to lose the Freedom and the Right to say it as some would. I also speak out against many of the Tactics and Statements your Opposition uses. On their Blogs and Message Boards of course. I also understand that Same Sex Marriage and Opposite Sex Marriage will not exist in perfect Harmony since it is not some sort of a mythical perfect world where everyone magically agrees on everything. My issue was the Double Standards being applied. If the Statements are out in the open, and not a double standard or a Lie I usually ignore them. NOM had tried to spin a "Companies should be Neutral on the Issue" using statements, Letters, Press ect, then broke that by applauding a Company for choosing a Side. That by definition invalidated all their previous statements as a lie. By stating one thing and doing another is a Lie. It is difficult for a Claim of Morality to be accepted when they are doing something that is Immoral. If they come out and state it as you stated it, then I would not say anything about it. I do enjoy the conversation I have with both sides, as long as they remain civil. Which you have done and I thank You for that. There are many who are exceptionally impolite, on both sides. Which doesn't help their respective causes.

  34. Johan de Vries
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    This whole discussion is being spun into a point that LEO neatly summarizes: "The bottom line, those companies who are confused on morality should remain neutral, those who are not, should support and defend morality when it comes to marriage and sexuality, period."

    However, that is not the point to begin with. This discussion shouldn't be about the positions of Starbucks, General Mills and Chick-fil-A. The discussion should be about NOM and the double standard they seem to applaud. If NOM had never mentioned the "neutral stance" this discussion wouldn't even take place. But since they shook their finger at Starbucks and Gen. Mills for speaking out and supporting marriage equality, NOM has effectively said: "even though Chick-fil-A is not neutral, we are going to break our own principles and applaud them for not staying neutral on the subject." So the question is, why would we take NOM's principles seriously if they don't seem to do themselves?

    That said, the whole "confused on morality" argument is an opinion, not fact. Many people share that opinion (especially here) and many people do not. In fact, in the USA the split on favoring vs. not favoring marriage equality is so close that in my opinion morailty is a tricky argument to play. Unless of course you think half the population of the USA is wrong too.

  35. M. Jones
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:33 am | Permalink

    We should be so grateful that a company will stand up for what is Godly and what is right and good.

  36. AM
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    The attack on Chick -fil-A is an escalation. Not just a boycott but a ban on the restaurant opening on college campuses or even in cities.

  37. Randy E King
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    @Johan de Vries

    "That said, the whole "confused on morality" argument is an opinion, not fact."

    An opinion grounded in over two thousand years of history and tradition; whereas your opinion, that sexual depravity is moral, is grounded in forty years of psychobabble emanating from those who partake in sexual depravity.

    You cannot legislate the absolution of your sins; God will see right through that little trick.

  38. HELENW
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    We have a Chic Fil A nearby..I occasionally eat there but from now on EVERY WED they will have my business.

    The people of Boston should vote this clown out. He should be worrying more about the crime and jobs in Boston than dictating where the people of America eat.

  39. Johan de Vries
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    "An opinion grounded in over two thousand years of history and tradition [...] grounded in forty years "

    But that still does not make it fact. Saying that until last century the general support for homosexuality was significantly smaller (near-non existent) than nowadays would indeed be factual. Saying that especially since the 1990s onward moral views have shifted tremendously towards being more favorable of same-sex relationships (at least in the Western world) is also a fact.

    It is also important to remember that over the biggest part of those two thousand years, the bible and the Quran have been leading as a belief and it is probably safe to say that it was also the law for about the same time in most parts of the world. However, the existense of God or Allah is not a fact either. As an atheist, I do not believe the bible to be the work of God but as a work of (historically incredibly important, I'll admit) fiction. In turn, the concept of sin is in my view man-made and highly subjective. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place.

    So all in all, while I respect you opinion that gay relationships are 'depraved' I absolutely not agree with it. And that is in fact a fact. ;)

  40. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    I say again, we are in a culture WAR with the enemy within our borders. In regards to the method of winning, well if the situation don't improve, every conceivable solution may start to show up on the table...

  41. Tim
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Christians just don't get it. Christ didn't give a flying fart about gay people. What people are justifiably mad about is not speech but the spending of large amounts of money to help prevent other humans from having simple human rights. If there was actually any such entity actually attacking YOUR rights you would be going ballistic! Get over yourselves, put down Leviticus for Christ sakes unless you are willing to live up to all of it and start focusing on LOVE. That you WILL find in the "words in Red". But not one single damned word about your little phobia... If you do ever get to "meet Jesus", he is REALLY going to be pissed at how far you have strayed from his teachings and at how unlike him most of the posters on here are. I have seen not one single mention of love. Pathetic...

  42. Publius
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Michael (26) suggests placing “a vote in front of the Citizens of Boston” as to whether Chick-fil-A be banned in Boston.

    Would it be a bill to ban all fast food franchises? Regardless of the possible the merits of the bill, I doubt it would pass. A bill to ban chicken restaurants? The beef industry might applaud it, but passage would be doubtful also.

    How about a ban on all otherwise legal businesses whose owners have politically incorrect views? That might pass in some jurisdictions. Berkeley, perhaps. I don’t know about Boston. Does America really want to go there, and what would that do to the First Amendment? The orthodoxy of political correctness is inherently hostile to liberty.

  43. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Johan de Vries:

    Here are some more facts about morality if you're not satisfied with facts Randy provided you:
    In 32 State in the US, the people have voted to make illegal public display and promotion of homosexuality, establishing the law on morality for those States. More than half of the US, just reccently, affirmed what sexual and marital morality is, and what it has been, period.

  44. Bruce
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    LEO:
    "In 32 State in the US, the people have voted to make illegal public display and promotion of homosexuality, establishing the law on morality for those States."

    Maybe you're talking about states who have made same sex marriage explicitly illegal, but no state has made illegal the "public display and promotion of homosexuality."

  45. Inda
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    So what is their next business move..post a sign at the door that says if you are gay Do Not Enter..I bet they did not have any problems taking the gay's money when they chose to eat there. Do they employ gays ? If not then he is open for a large discrimination suit. I thought we were all created equal.

  46. Johan de Vries
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    LEO, bruce is correct in stating that the laws you are referring to are explicitly regarding the banning of same sex marriage recognition. I'm fairly sure that you will not find (much) legislation that prohibits the "public display and promotion of homosexuality".

    Also, the amendments in those 32 states may be true for now, but I see few reasons to believe that they are going to sustain for another, say 25 years. That is based purely on my feelings when looking at the increase in support for same sex relationships over the past 20 years and data from countries where same sex marriage has been legal for a while now.

    But as I mentioned before, this whole discussion is hardly ontopic in regard to the blog post above.

  47. WJGBalderama
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    I'll be there for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

  48. Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    I'm confused as to which side NOM and it's supporters are supporting when it comes to Chick-fil-a and their president Dan Cathy?

    Are you supporting Dan Cathy's anti-gay statements? Or are you supporting CFA's PR statements that blatantly go against what Dan Cathy and his deleted tweets said?

  49. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Bruce, gay marriage is a homosexual activity, which has been "technically " voted illegal by 32 States, those States have yet to vote on the punishment for violators. But, hey at the rate the push for immorality by the LGBT, it may become a crime to promote and participate in these activities in public and in other situations.

    The Boy Scouts have recently affirmed their ban on homosexual members in all its forms. Any lead or offfical found to be gay will be dismissed( as punishment). It was the local citizens who made that happen establishing morality on the issue.

    In any event, those States have affirmed what morality is and has been on the subject...

  50. Publius
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    I am confused as to which side NOM’s critics are on. Do they believe in the First Amendment? Do they believe that the city of Boston should prevent Chick-fil-A from having a franchise in Boston because of the politically incorrect views of its owner? And if so, should Boston ban politically incorrect churches as well?

  51. Garrett
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Is NOM ready for a boycott of The Muppets?

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-jim-henson-company/july-20-2012/10150928864755563

  52. Bruce
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    LEO,
    I don't know what kind of public support exists for the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexuals, but the reason they are able to discriminate against gay men and lesbians is because they are a private organization. From a legal standpoint, public opinion has nothing to do with it. According to a Gallup, 67% of Americans think homosexual behavior should be legal. The SCOTUS declared laws again sodomy unconstitutional in 2003.

  53. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Evan, are you saying its a bad thing to be anti-gay?It is human nature to be anti-gay, there are no gay gene just sexual confusion on your side.

  54. GeorgiaPeachie
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    As for me and my house, we WILL SERVE THE LORD.

    I've put Wednesday on my calendar to pick up breakfast for my sons as well as my daughter and her family. Will take my clients that day to lunch there and plan on bringing home as least dessert (love their brownies) for hubby and I.

    Will send out emails now to everyone informing them of the importance of the day!

    It's time Christians started showing their SUPPORT for companies with values and morals!!

  55. LEO
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Bruce, who care about pulls, I 'm talking about actal votes on the subject. In regards to you SCOTUS, asuming your facts are correct thatt, it ruled sodomy unconstitutional in 2003, proves my point!

  56. Bruce
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    LEO,
    If you question my claim about Lawrence v. Texas, why don't you use the computer you're sitting at to check it out? I'm even more mystified by your belief that this fact confirms any claim you've made.

  57. Randy E King
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    @Johan de Vries

    Jesus said to leave the sin and sin no more; he did not say embrace the sin as though it were an unavoidable fact of life. There is no record of Jesus addressing 'gay people" due to the FACT that there were no such animal.

    The notion of individuals living their entire lives exclusively attracted to like gender individuals is a 19th century German hypothesis the quickly fell into disfavor and did not resurface until the 1970's when sexual deviants organized to create an appearance of acceptability and inevitability to their immorality.

    The Bible has never been disproved and until it is it will remain a work of non-fiction

    If you were truly interested in the facts you would be addressing the factual intent of your own biology; as opposed to seeding disinformation in an obvious attempt to lend a greater appearance of acceptability to your depravity than is factually justifiable.

  58. Randy E King
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    This begs the question:

    When Emperor Nero declared same-gender marriages legal did he do so out of desperation to address the rising tide of Christianity sweeping through the Empire?

    Coincidentally; Rome fell (4) years after Nero started castrating male companions and then "marrying" them.

  59. Greg
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    EAT MORE KALE!!!!

  60. Eve
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Thank God for a business that stands Up for Good Morals!! Way to go Chick fi la...

  61. Fitz
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Adam and Eve

    Thanks for the heads up. Now thats truly disturbing..

    The way Hollywood is capable of manipulating emotions and propagandizing on behald of marriage destruction is probably the most devestating front on the war against traditional morality.

    The prime educator of most young people today is not their parents or the public schools or religion but the entertainment industry.

    This allows them to play to pure emotion while ignoring the reason and the ugly face of what they advocate.

    God help us....

  62. Good News
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    You said it Fritz.

    But what sunshine to the money loving no holds bared capitalistic American western world of ours. They're just educating a new customer base. And what young lady doesn't need a little money to get through college or put a down payment on the starter home?

    Here here to your conclusion...

  63. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    @32
    Leo,
    A Culture War is by definition a War of Ideology. Doing something Immoral in the Name of Morality is still Immoral. That is not ideology. That is Fact. No Spin can change that Fact. When people lose sight of that in an effort to "Win" they have already lost.

  64. Michael
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    From the Supreme Court Ruling Lawrence vs Texas: "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." That ruling prohibits States from Creating or Enforcing Same Sex Sexual Contact Laws.

    Fitz,
    If parents let the Entertainment Industry teach their Children, then it is the Parents who are to blame for not parenting their Children. Too many Parents leave the education of their Children to Entertainment, or the Schools or their Churches. And then they wonder what happened.

    Good News,
    Unrestrained Capitalism is a Tenant of Conservatism. The belief is that the Industries will regulate themselves. That is a false belief.

  65. Proudly gay in LA
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    Miss guided religious bigotry eventually falls. Ask your god to make you less bigoted. If it doesn't happen you he doesn't exist. You can fry that up and shove it down your throats. I will be shopping at Penneys.

  66. Little Man
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 4:29 am | Permalink

    Don't get side-tracked by the dumb tangential arguments provided by Same-sex civil marriage or union supporters and lobbyists on this thread. They seek to ridicule, and find fault. Take away the question mark from their computer keyboards, and they end up speechless :)

    Chick-Fil-A is not a little bed&breakfast home-run business, nor is it some part-time energetic photography service. It is a successful chain of restaurants offering protein for human consumption. We can go for a long time without the first two, but not long without the latter. It's also not just a chain of over-priced coffee and ridiculously sugarcoated pastries. With Chick-Fil-A you are talking a real corporation with many loyal customers. They even teach us how to pronounce 'filet' - that's good public relations.

    For starters, and as part of this support for Chick-Fil-A let me suggest they set up an outlet or franchise in Hawaii. Note there's none, yet. But Kentucky Fried's quality is 'fried' and barely satisfactory at some outlets. We need some competition:
    http://www.hoursmap.com/s/hawaii/chick-fil-a-hours-locations-s1256055

    So, hold on to your seats as a real corporation, well funded, and successful protects its own business rights and sets up an outlet in Boston, hopefully right in front of the Mayor's office (can he resist?). This is better than a soap opera, and no wonder how come it's been years since i wasted my time with one (one dumb crisis after another).

    Starbucks is playing the corporate non-neutral game too, but Chick-fil-A is only protecting their business rights. Yes, i know some on this thread cannot tell the difference, so i have to spell it out for them. The USA education system is the cause.

  67. Good News
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    @Michael, thanks for the comment.

    I would add also that parents need the help of their community to educate their children. That is why a community is formed in large part.
    To simply “blame” the parents is to easy, and not very fair. We know how extremely advanced and fine tuned the market, commercial, media and entertainment world is. It is not fair to expect the average parent, who is trying to do their best, to be able to counter such a force.
    Of course there are always strong, talented, and blessed families that can see their way through without too much damage, and we are going to need these families more and more. But it is reasonable, and it is needed for a society to help rather than hinder parents

    In large part that is what this fight is. Who is going to raise our children? The government or the parents?
    Parents (and the voting citizen) are trying to get the government to help in the healthy education of their children; on all fronts, media and entertainment world included. And yet the government (capitalistic, money powers of America and the west) completely ignore the wishes of the voting citizen and parents, in order to advance their potential financial gain in the easy money category, good for Wall Street.

  68. LEO
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    NOM, please release one of my duplicate post, thnsk you!
    Mike, I have response for you @ 63 and 64, NOM should have posted yesterday...

  69. Rachel
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    You are all horrible human beings. Your unchecked hatred and bigotry disgusts me, and I resent you for how angry you make me feel.

  70. Robert Hebert
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    NOM sucks. Bigots. Haters. Losers.

  71. John N.
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Great: It jus so happens I travelled down south last Wednesday and ate at my first Chick-Fil-A.

  72. Jeff Armstrong
    Posted July 23, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    I've never been to Chick-Fil-A, but I'll be going for the first time on Wednesday. Lunch (with a co-worker) and dinner (with family and friends).

    Thank you Chick-Fil-A! Your example is inspiring!

  73. SanLynn
    Posted July 24, 2012 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Too bad this month isn't June. We could declare every Wednesday as 'eat at Chik-fil-A to show our support (ha-ha) of Obama's LGBT Pride month!

    Nearest Chik-fil-A is 30 minutes away, but I'll be there this Wednesday!

  74. A Strait Canadian
    Posted July 24, 2012 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    You guys know gay marriage has absolutely no effect on straight people whatsoever, right?

    In Canada, we've reached a point where a lot of people don't remember that it was ever illegal. Our society didn't crumble, husbands didn't leave their wives for the siren call of leather bars, and churches weren't forced to perform marriages that they weren't comfortable with. Literally the only thing that changed is that gay people were allowed to get married. Nothing else. That was the only thing.

    But you knew that already. You don't care that it doesn't affect you. You're not happy unless other people are unhappy because you're lacking something in your soul. You can try to fill that hole with religion all you want, but I think that deep down, most of you know that you're not on the side of Jesus in this debate. He wouldn't actively support hate.

    In 20 years, your children/grandchildren/great grandchildren are going to be horrified and disgusted by your behaviour right now. You're the modern day KKK and I hope you're all proud of yourselves.

  75. Teresa
    Posted July 24, 2012 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    You guys have the wrong day, it's August 1. Look for Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day on facebook.

  76. bman
    Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    A Strait Canadian->You guys know gay marriage has absolutely no effect on straight people whatsoever, right?

    You are wearing blinders when you say "absolutely no effect."

    Government in Canada has become increasingly despotic in forcing pro-gay indoctrination through the schools.

    That fact alone would affect millions of people in harmful ways.

    It would mean decreased parental rights, religious conscience violations by government, forced indoctrination of children with immoral sexual concepts, and greater risk of harm to children because the society around them has become indoctrinated with a morally corrupt mindset..

    That can not be viewed as "absolutely no effect."

    Here are a few headlines:

    Ontario Premier: Catholic schools have no choice but to accept gay clubs

    McGuinty Liberals won’t back down from imposing gay agenda in classrooms: lesbian minister

    School trustee balks as gay anti-bullying material exposes children to gay porn videos

    Planner for elementary students celebrates ‘sex workers,’ transgenderism, ‘LGBTTQQI2S’ agenda

    Ottawa school board joins homosexual ‘pride’ parade

    Connect the Dots: [Shows that Canada's school policy mirrors that of Nazi Germany.]

  77. turn2love
    Posted July 25, 2012 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    For those of you that are truly interested in knowing how to find the answer to this debate. It is written in Luke 6:31 and John 13:34

  78. Snyder
    Posted July 25, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    This is ridiculous. First, those who are opposed to same-sex marriage saying that it's destroying the family, blah blah blah... Then how do you explain all of the adultery, divorces, etc..? Drop the Bible, people. The word "homosexual" did not appear in any translation of the Christian
    Bible until 1946. There are words in Greek for same-sex sexual activities, yet they never
    appear in the original text of the New Testament. Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures.

    "Despite a popular perception that male-female pairings are the only "natural" way, the animal kingdom is actually full of examples of same-sex couples. Penguins, dolphins, bison, swans, giraffes and chimpanzees are just a few of the many species that sometimes pair up with same-sex partners.

    Researchers are still mulling over the evolutionary reason, if any, for gay animal sex, since it doesn't produce offspring. Some ideas are that it helps strengthen social bonds or encourages some individuals to focus their resources on nurturing their nieces and nephews, thus boosting their own genes indirectly.

    Or, it may simply be fun. "Not every sexual act has a reproductive function," said Janet Mann, a biologist at Georgetown University."

    "Another stereotype is that gay relationships aren't as real or long-lasting as heterosexual ones.

    Research has found that to be untrue. Long-term studies of gay couples indicate that their relationships are just as stable as straight pairings.

    "There is considerable evidence that both lesbians and gay men want to be in strong, committed relationships [and] are successful in creating these partnerships, despite difficulties created by social prejudice, stigma, and the lack of legal recognition for same-sex relationships in most parts of the U.S.," said UCLA psychologist Anne Peplau, co-author of a book chapter on the subject published in the 2007 Annual Review of Psychology.

    For example, John Gottman, a University of Washington emeritus professor of psychology, and his colleagues collected data from homosexual couples across 12 years, and found that about 20 percent had broken up over that time. That rate projected over a 40-year period is slightly lower than the divorce rate for first marriages among heterosexual couples over the same time span, according to the study published in 2003 in the Journal of Homosexuality.

    "The overall implication of this research is that we have to shake off all of the stereotypes of homosexual relationships and have more respect for them as committed relationships," Gottman said.

    In fact, the same study found that gay couples tend to be better at resolving conflicts and encouraging positive emotions."

    An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.

    For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.

    A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian.

    "The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
    "Many of those who oppose gay marriage and gay adoption charge that same-sex parents aren't good for kids, and that a child needs both a father and a mother to grow up to be a healthy adult. Research, however, shows that children of gay parents tend to fare just fine.

    For example, one recent study looked at nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, showing that both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.

    Another study found that kids with two moms or two dads were no more likely than their counterparts in "traditional" homes to engage in delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights.

    "The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents," said Timothy Biblarz, a sociologist at the University of Southern California. "This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well."

    Both studies were described in a literature review paper published in February 2010 in the Journal of Marriage and Family."

    "While some claim that being gay is a choice, or that homosexuality can be cured, evidence is mounting that same-sex attraction is at least partly genetic and biologically based.

    To test whether genes play a role, researchers have compared identical twins (in which all genes are shared) to fraternal twins (in which about 50 percent of genes are shared). A 2001 review of such twin studies reported that almost all found identical twins were significantly more likely to share a sexual orientation – that is, to be either both gay, or both straight – than fraternal twins, who are less genetically close. Such findings indicate that genes do factor into a person's orientation.

    Other studies have found that biological effects, such as hormone exposure in the womb, can also play a role in shaping sexual orientation. And findings of physiological differences, such as different inner ear shapes between homosexual and heterosexual women, contribute to this idea.

    "The results support the theory that differences in the central nervous system exist between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and that the differences are possibly related to early factors in brain development," said Sandra Witelson of McMaster University in Ontario, an author on the 1998 inner ear finding published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

    Anyway, there is a lot of religious crap spewed with little to no factual evidence. If anyone can provide scientific evidence of God, I would be grateful.

    If it doesn't have any relevance in your life and it doesn't hurt you. Why do you care?

  79. Donna
    Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    I ate lunch at Chick Fil A here in CA and it was packed by people of all ethnicities and ages. It was wonderful to see the support even here in liberal CA. I will eat dinner there tonight as well to show my support for the Cathy family for courageously standing up for what is morally right.

  80. Phil Clingerman
    Posted July 25, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    We went to the Chick-Fil-A @
    Hamilton Marketplace
    555 Marketplace Blvd Hamilton, NJ 08691
    (609) 581-7601

    The spicy chicken sandwich was delicious! Three young people asked if they could help me carry the food or refill our drinks. They were polite and helpful.

    I was happy to support an organization that believes in traditional and correct values. We need to stand up the Marxist nonsense coming from the White House.

  81. Posted July 26, 2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    What I find interesting is that all these people think Chick-Fil-A is so great and moral because they are against gay marriage. I wonder how many of their employees make less than a living wage so that the owners can fill their pockets with money rather than paying their employees a fair wage and offering benefits to them. I would say most. I wonder how many of their employees have health insurance. I would say probably hardly any. There is nothing moral about having your employees come to work every day and have to go home and not be able to afford to feed their family or go to the doctor when they are sick. There are more important issues related to morality and ethics, and it is absurd and ridiculous that people are thinking this company is "moral" over something that has to do with gay people, which has NOTHING to do with economics while they do not care at all about how this business contributes to the ever widening gap between the rich and poor and the continued increase in the percentage of our population that work but do not make a fair and living wage. I do not eat at this company specifically because they tout themselves to be this moral, Bible-following company when they do not follow even the most basic ideals that the Bible teaches about how we are supposed to treat one another. I'm pretty sure it's more important that workers be able to afford food than whether gay people marry each other.

  82. Me
    Posted July 27, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    It is so sad to hear all of the hate that is coming from everyone. God does not hate. He may be sad when people do things, but he does not hate. I appreciate the fact that you all feel you want to live a righteous life. However you are being tricked into going to a business under false pretenses. Who is coming out on top? Two actually, the Devil and the Corporation. The devil is smiling with all of the hate he is putting in the heart of Gods people for others. We are all Gods children and we should be trying to help others and not put them down. The corporation is making a bundle. Look at all of you who have said that you have never even been to Chick-Fil-A before but you will be eating there now. They are really raking in the money using hatred. Please don't let Chick-Fil-A spawn hatred for Gods children in your heart. DON'T SUPPORT HATRED.

  83. bman
    Posted July 28, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    It is so sad to hear all of the hate that is coming from everyone.

    We are to love the good and hate the evil.

    Some verses:

    To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech. Proverbs 8:13 New International Version

    Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph. Amos 5:15

    Your post said "don't support hatred."

    That is actually an incomplete statement, though.

    You should complete it by defining [the object] of the hatred.

    If, for example, you are saying, "don't support hatred [of evil]" you would side with evil against good.

    That would also contradict Proverbs 8:13 and Amos 5:15, that we are to love good and to hate evil.

    If you meant "don't support hatred [of gay people]" then you are confused as to what the Chick-Fil-A event is about.

    A typical saying among Christians is, "hate the sin, but love the sinner."

    We are hating [sin], not [the sinner] when we support Chick-Fil-A for taking a public stand against sin.

    Indeed, its a proper role for love to speak against sin.

    Its common for love to shine truth so others can escape harms that easily hide in the darkness.

    Moral harms result from moral ignorance. If you are told the moral harms are there, you can then avoid them.

    Its the proper role of love, therefore, to support public speech that exposes sin.

    Speaking against sin and evil is to hate [sin], but its also tough love [towards the people], not hatred of [the people].

    An immature mind easily confuses the two, however.

    Chick-Fil-A has spoken publicly against [sin] out of love for what is right, and its speech provides public guidance to a society has been misguided by speech promoting sin.

    The true hatred [of good] comes from those who exercise their speech to misguide society into sin, so they can feel comfortable in their own sin.

    In other words, you have it all backwards. The haters [of good] are those who oppose Chick Fil A's good speech against sin, and the lovers [of good] are those who support Chick-Fil-A 's good public speech against sin.

    The question you need to ask yourself is which [side] are you really on?

  84. Don Hunter
    Posted July 29, 2012 at 12:21 am | Permalink

    Randy E King said:
    Coincidentally; Rome fell (4) years after Nero started castrating male companions and then "marrying" them.

    The quotation above is factually false-Rome did not fall four years after anything Nero did during his lifetime

    The Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. when the last emperor was deposed and not replaced.

    Nero was emperor from 54 to 68 A.D. He died in 68 A.D .

    Therefore, Rome did not fall after anything Nero did during his lifetime. In fact, The Roman Empire lasted hundreds of years after the death of Nero

  85. Don Hunter
    Posted July 29, 2012 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    Correction: last sentence should read- did not fall four years after anything Nero did during his lifetime.

  86. Don Hunter
    Posted July 29, 2012 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    Correction: The second to last sentence should read- did not fall four years after anything Nero did during his lifetime.

  87. Mike
    Posted July 29, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    I plan to eat there Wednesday and every day they are open this week.

    Great company (best customer service), great chicken!

  88. Posted July 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    As for me and my family we will stay true to our belief’s and support Chick-fil-A for staying true to theirs. Marriage was created for a man and a woman and should stay that way.
    Praise God for companies like Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby that take and stand for God in this country.
    We will eat at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday just like we do every week.