Zack

Chick-Fil-A just stated they wouldn't-the company never did-donate to traditional marriage groups. This makes no sense since only Dan Cathy used his own money when donating to such efforts.

The title of the argument says the company changed it's view. It didn't , just that they will cease donations which they never donated. It was only the CEO.

Pamela

The only thing these anti-traditional-marriage people have in writing is that Chick-Fil-A wouldn't discriminate, which has obviously always been their policy. The articles all claim that they won't donate to specific groups. How can I verify that they have never donated to these groups? It looks like Chick-Fil-A is caving to pressure, which would be devastating because I was thrilled to have some one actually standing for marriage. Now I'm trying to figure out what is going on.

bob

I agree with Pamela. It certainly sounds like CFA 'caved'. The Yahoo article talks about negotiations between Chicago, an LGBT group and CFA. I'm hoping that this statement from NOM isn't just 'damage control' for CFA

Kathy

I will no longer be supporting Chik-fil-A after today. They caved in and backed down on their morals. They said they would officially end all donations to traditional marriage groups and issued a statement that they support equality for so called gay people.

Benji

Chick a filla has spoken, Wednesdays supporters have spoken and now revenues have spoken.

Preserve Marriage

Jacy Topps wrote, "Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A donates money to anti-gay organizations."

Opposing special rights for people that have sex with people of the same gender, isn't "anti-gay".

Wouldn't it be convenient if no one could oppose special rights for homosexuals without being "anti-gay", by definition?

Just Me

But they already have the same rights we do. They are entitled to marry someone who they CAN procreate with...just the same as we can, I might add. Lobbying for a new "right" does in fact mean it's special and unique to that group (since no one else will exercise this "right").

I wholeheartedly agree that everyone has their own free will and can make up their own minds, I also wholeheartedly believe that people need to stop bringing their sex lives into public view, and I so wish that common decency hadn't taken leave of our world. You can't tell me we still act with common decency - I mean, go watch the news already if you think we do.

I don't discuss at every opportunity (and as loudly as I can) the fact that I may or may not have sex with someone I may or may not be committed to. That's something that is best left between myself and my partner, if I have one. So...why is it that I am expected to accept something I don't agree with quietly and simply - even if I do already respect the individual's right to choose - when the other group can take a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude and beat everyone else down at will? Why is it that, at every turn, we must be increasingly exposed to something that other people maybe should leave between themselves and their partners so that we can focus on the REAL issues? You know...homelessness, poverty, disease, etc...

Randy E King

@Jacy,

In your upside down world any person that tithes to their Judea/Christian/Muslim church is guilty of supporting "anti-gay" organizations. Freedom of religion is our first and most important authentic civil right. Your anti-religious bigotry is unacceptable and, in fact, criminal under the United States Constitution.

Marriage corruption supporters, such as yourself, are completely dependent upon the bastardization of language just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.

Chairm

Some would applaude changing the policy of the WinShape Foundation so that it confirms to the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics.

Whether or not the reported change is fictional.

False but true is the underlying basis of the entire SSM campaign, anyway. So hockers of gay identity politics will celebrate yet another falsehood. No surprise there.