Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"there seems to be something going on that isn't kosher"
February 1, 2013 11:49 AM   Subscribe

Earlier this week, Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride made news with an article about his friendship with Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A: "Dan and Me: My Coming Out as a Friend of Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A".

The article discussed the controversy regarding how Chick-fil-A has donated money to anti-gay causes, as Windmeyer has seen their most recent 990 tax forms. This led to articles claiming the donations had stopped: "Chick-fil-A tax forms show no donations to anti-gay groups".

The pushback against Windmeyer and Chick-fil-A was quick, including in a livechat between him and others hosted by Huffington Post, "Friend Of Chick-Fil-A" and other articles: "Memo To Media: Chick-Fil-A Hasn't Ended Its Anti-Gay Donations", "No, You Can't Go Back to Chick-fil-A"

Previously on Metafilter:
"We are married to our first wives"
"Appreciation"
"So...can we eat Chick-fil-A again?"
posted by andoatnp (51 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
It was Dan who took a great risk in inviting me: He stood to face the ire of his conservative base (and a potential boycott) by being seen or photographed with an LGBT activist. He could have been portrayed as "caving to the gay agenda" by welcoming me.

Instead, he stood next to me most of the night, putting respect ahead of fear. There we were on the sidelines, Dan, his wife, his family and friends and I, all enjoying the game.
I can't help but notice: Shane mentions his husband ("of 18 years") early in the article but he is not present at this friends-and-family gathering.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:05 PM on February 1, 2013 [13 favorites]


Also, nobody's going to boycott the guy's restaurant for meeting with an activist when he's still funneling money to those same political groups himself and continues to create an environment where people of the wrong religious persuasion do not feel comfortable working.

What I mean is his new buddy Dan doesn't have a "conservative base" -- he's a fucking business owner.

Eat at the place if you want, go to all the football games you want, but don't try to whitewash what Cathy has done and continues to do.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:21 PM on February 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


I have great respect for people of differing views to come together and talk with and listen to one another, as individuals.

I have much less respect when it's still "Well, I respect and like you as a person but I still think it's okay for legal discrimination to exist that prevents you from having the same rights I do."
posted by rtha at 12:22 PM on February 1, 2013 [8 favorites]


There's a small voice in my head saying "you got played, muthafugga"
posted by C.A.S. at 12:29 PM on February 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


I have no doubt that Dan Cathy is a perfectly nice person. Some of the most ruthless bastards I have known are very personable, friendly, and engaging. It is, however, a mistake to mistake their quite genuine friendliness as a gesture indicating they're not going to rip your fucking throat out at some point in the future when it serves their end.

Friendly is not friends and personally treating you with respect does not mean ceasing to give money to causes that denigrate you as a person or that you disagree with.
posted by wierdo at 12:30 PM on February 1, 2013 [14 favorites]


And I know things now,
Many valuable things,
That I hadn't known before:
Do not put your faith
In a cape and a hood,
They will not protect you
The way that they should.
And take extra care with strangers,
Even flowers have their dangers.
And though scary is exciting,
Nice is different than good.

-Stephen Sondheim

Dan Cathy may be nice, but he's still a wolf in the woods.
posted by Doleful Creature at 12:34 PM on February 1, 2013 [27 favorites]


People aren't nice, they either do nice things or they don't.
posted by 2bucksplus at 12:36 PM on February 1, 2013 [5 favorites]


Still, I would submit that doing nice things is still not the same as doing the right thing.
posted by Doleful Creature at 12:41 PM on February 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


Wars are fought and people die or at least come to blows....over what is truth and what is not.


There will only and ever be real peace when that is settled once and for all.

Till then, it doesn't hurt to be kind.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 12:54 PM on February 1, 2013


In related news: Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR.
posted by ericb at 12:59 PM on February 1, 2013


There will only and ever be real peace when that is settled once and for all.

We like to believe that, but to be perfectly honest, the Thunderdome never does contain the situation quite as neatly as it should.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 1:07 PM on February 1, 2013


ericb: "In related news: Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR."

...because a certain part of this country celebrates, nay, REVELS in being an asshole to other people.
posted by notsnot at 1:12 PM on February 1, 2013 [6 favorites]


If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people.

Is that the general consensus here?
posted by ILuvMath at 1:18 PM on February 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


ILuvMath, if one is opposed to gay marriage, then one should not have a marriage with someone the same sex as them. If one is opposed to other people having same-sex marriages, then, as you say, "s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people."
posted by Xoder at 1:34 PM on February 1, 2013 [21 favorites]


ILuvMath: "If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people.

Is that the general consensus here?
"

... Fuck just one goat and all of a sudden ...
posted by wcfields at 1:35 PM on February 1, 2013 [8 favorites]


There will only and ever be real peace when that is settled once and for all.

Till then, it doesn't hurt to be kind.


Exactly - so maybe christian fundies should stop trying to deny human rights to people they are bigoted against. They can settle for tallying score on the sin-o-meter when they get to their imaginary afterparty.
posted by FatherDagon at 1:45 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Great story, thanks for posting
posted by Bwithh at 2:21 PM on February 1, 2013


If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people.

Is that the general consensus here?


Maybe they're not homophobic in the "let's go beat up some faggots!" way or the "Homos should all be locked up until they die of AIDS" way.

If you think it's unfair to label someone homophobic because they don't think the states or the feds should grant my same-sex relationship the same recognition as a heterosexual one, well, I guess you could argue that some people oppose same-sex marriage without being afraid of or hating gay people, and so the label "homophobic" is unfair in that context.

To me, I don't care why someone opposes granting me and my relationship the same rights that they enjoy - I don't care if it's because they hate me or are afraid of me or if it's because they believe that's what God said or whatever. The result is the same: I do not deserve the same rights. And you know, fuck that.
posted by rtha at 2:35 PM on February 1, 2013 [9 favorites]


If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people.

No, not at all. The key is in the "monger" part; it means they deal in it, trade it back and forth in the public square. If a person keeps their opposition, or even their hatred, to themselves, they are not a hate-monger.

I don't quite know what your intention was with that statement, but it reminds me of a pretty tired rhetorical strategy that's common in on-line discussions, where people confuse the right to think or to feel a certain way with the right to use the government to impose it on other people. I wish it would go away.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:35 PM on February 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people.

Is that the general consensus here?


I'm reminded of the scene in Blazing Saddles when the nice old woman brings Sheriff Bart (a black man, for those unfamiliar with the movie) an apple pie for saving the town, then says as she leaves "Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I spoke to you.".

So...yeah...I think it's pretty easy to treat people "nice", say laudable things, and still have hateful views. And "I wish to deprive you of a right that I take for granted because your sexuality offends me" is pretty much right there in the homophobic and hateful wheelhouse.
posted by kjs3 at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people.

Yep.
posted by kmz at 2:56 PM on February 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


No one has yet mentioned the power asymmetry here. Cathy reaches out to, frankly, a minor character, but one with an audience. I wonder if it's overt or unconscious that Cathy gets to say "look at how I did my Christian duty to be compassionate and minister to the apostate" while showing the apostate "look at how fucking powerful I am...this bowl game belongs to me". It smacks of a Roman Emperor inviting the barbarian kings to Rome to beat them down with how much more of everything Rome is than anything they have or will ever have.
posted by kjs3 at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2013


If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people

being openly and actively opposed to gay marriage *is* saying something and *is* treating people (in a particular way).
posted by sineater at 3:29 PM on February 1, 2013 [11 favorites]


If a person is opposed to gay marriage, then s/he is automatically a homophobic hate-monger, no matter what else s/he says or how s/he treats people.

For the same reason that if someone is opposed to interracial marriage, then he is automatically a racist hate-monger, no matter how many black friends he says he has.
posted by stavrogin at 3:30 PM on February 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


...because a certain part of this country celebrates, nay, REVELS in being an asshole to other people.

Well, sort of. Dan Cathy knows better, but to be fair, a lot of his cohort really don't. They should, but they don't, and they've never had occasion to think of these issues on a personal level. It's just a big war of "good vs. evil", and the opposing side is reduced to something other than human, so it really doesn't feel to them like persecution. They're not revelling in being assholes to other human beings, they're just fighting (they believe) the good fight.

This is what happens when your worldview is handed down to you from a pulpit on Sunday afternoons. This is what happens when you never ever question that. And let's be honest with ourselves, there are a hell of a lot of people in this world who 1)don't know that they are allowed to question things and 2)really don't have the time or the means with which to do so.

Take my mother-in-law for example. The woman is the absolute picture of goodness. Just a genuinely good and kind person who would do anything to help you out, and would never seek glory for herself in the process. But! In her insulated life she has never met a person who was out as LGBTQ. She simply has no idea, no frame of reference. To her a gay person is a totem of the encroaching darkness of a world preparing for apocalypse. That's how she was raised, that's how pretty much everyone around her was raised (we're Mormon families in Utah and Idaho mostly).

Her kids, by the way, do have differing view on this, entirely based on their exposure or lack thereof. My wife was heavily involved in the arts and as a consequence has several openly-gay friends. My wife is also supportive of same-sex marriage rights. Her other siblings, who don't have any gay friends at all, don't support same-sex marriage rights. And that's all the thought they're going to give it.

But to hear them talk about LGBTQ stuff, if and when they ever do, is enlightening: they have no idea what they're talking about! They have zero insight. "The Gays" are just another thing, way off in the distance, a symbol of the "end times" (eschatology is a big common topic in most Mormon and Evangelical communities). It's frightening and pathetic all at once. They sound like children when they talk about it, parroting things their parents/church leaders have said, the light of comprehension is completely absent in their eyes when discussing. It simply means nothing to them. The gay man is a boogeyman to them, a character on TV, not a real person.

I used to be this way a little bit, I'm ashamed to admit. I grew up being taught the exact same things. And I'm sad to say that it really took a friendship of almost two years with a gay couple at my workplace for me to really truly shed my prejudices and religiously-founded biases about LGBTQ folks.

The worst part? My gay friends admitted that they make an effort to be their very best at work, to act like a "normal straight couple", basically to be as palatable as possible to all their mostly-Mormon co-workers so that they don't have to feel unwelcome at work and in the hope that they'll change some minds. Which they did change mine.

In a perfect world they shouldn't have to do that. It's sick and unjust. They shouldn't have to dress up for the crowd to prevent a mob. We all should know better. It's total bullshit. It's also the reality they face every day.

I'm not trying to excuse the behavior of millions. But I am sharing my personal experience with some of these deeply religious folks, and I believe they really honestly have never considered it on a personal level. To them homosexuality is a trick of the devil and until someone makes it personal for them it's just another "fiery dart of the adversary" against which they believe they must prevail. You know, for the kingdom of heaven.

It reminds me of that famous Mark Twain quote that "travel is fatal to prejudice". My mother-in-law has pretty much spent her entire life in Idaho and Utah. She doesn't know any non-white people personally. She doesn't know any LGBTQ people personally. She really only knows her husband and her children. She's had no experiences in her life that would dismantle the prejudices she was taught by the people she loved and trusted as a child. The scales have not, and may not ever, fall from her eyes.

But Dan Cathy on the other hand, a man of business, a well-traveled man of the world, who has been many places and seen much in his lifetime, he absolutely and completely knows better.
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:47 PM on February 1, 2013 [32 favorites]


It smacks of a Roman Emperor inviting the barbarian kings to Rome to beat them down with how much more of everything Rome is than anything they have or will ever have.

Which is fine for Rome until the barbarian kings grow in number and strength and kick Rome's ass from Illyria to Hispania.
posted by the sobsister at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2013


My favorite fast food restaurant is Chick-Fil-A. They have great food, sparkling clean restaurants, refreshing mints in the bathrooms and friendly and courteous workers. They have a great chicken club sandwich, awesome waffle fries, real lemonade and real milkshakes.

I love eating there. Or least I used to, before I found out that the owner is a bigot. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth that even the best lemonade can't wash away.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2013


Merriam Webster:

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


While we are discussing bigotry, please remember that door swings both ways.

Pun accidental.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:05 PM on February 1, 2013


I am opposed to gay marriage and I'm not a homophobe.

I think gay marriage represents the victory of assimilation over liberation, and I oppose it.

It's disappointing to me that people can't even conceive of opposition to gay marriage that's not based on homophobia. That's probably because people assume that "opposition to gay marriage" is the same thing as "support for legal discrimination against gay couples," but in my case, the opposition doesn't take that form.
posted by layceepee at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2013


a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I just... I am so sick of this bullshit. People who point out the privileged place white men hold in this society are the REAL racists, the people who speak out against bullies are the REAL bullies, and people who are obstinately devoted to their opinion that gay people deserve rights too are the REAL bigots!
posted by coupdefoudre at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2013 [9 favorites]


I hear you, layceepee. The way I've gone with that - despite my multiple gay marriages (to the same woman, hoping one will stick) - is that I'm opposed to all forms of government sanction for this kind of relationship but not that one.

My question to you is, are you so opposed to assimilationist stuff like "gay marriage" that you would support legally required discrimination?
posted by rtha at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


I am opposed to gay marriage and I'm not a homophobe.
I think gay marriage represents the victory of assimilation over liberation, and I oppose it.


<glib>If you oppose gay marriage, then don't have one.</glib>

But seriously, do you just not want one for yourself, or do you think the force of government should be used to prevent others from having one? And are there any other interesting groups of people who you think need to be liberated too, and so should be prevented from getting married? You do see where I am going with this, don't you?
posted by benito.strauss at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


My answer to you rtha is no.
posted by layceepee at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2013


But seriously, do you just not want one for yourself, or do you think the force of government should be used to prevent others from having one?

I think you've excluded a middle there, benito.strauss.

I oppose eating meat. I oppose it not just for myself--I oppose other people eating meat too. But I don't think the force of government should be used to prevent people from eating meat.

You do see where I am going with this, don't you?
posted by layceepee at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


Okay, then. You're opposed to all forms of governmentally sanctioned marriage then, yes?

/shrug
posted by rtha at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


just... I am so sick of this bullshit. People who point out the privileged place white men hold in this society are the REAL racists, the people who speak out against bullies are the REAL bullies, and people who are obstinately devoted to their opinion that gay people deserve rights too are the REAL bigots!

This isn't about something so vague as opinion, (on either side, to be fair.)

One side sees it as about human rights, the other side sees it as a mockery of something that to them is an earthly representation of the relationship to Christ and His church. (I will, also in the interest of fairness, point out that as such, that particular side has a lot of work to do in the realm of casual divorce and personal purity in their own ranks.)

Here, in this place, I am not so much concerned with what goes on in the outside world as I am with the fact that those of us who post need to be respectful of one another, as we understand there is more than one view on this topic. There are more than two views*, even. Probably even more than that. If all of us can choose to be respectful of one another, instead of have kneejerk reactions to one another, it would be a positive thing.


*for instance, it is possible to believe that gay people should not be discriminated against in areas such as employment and housing, while still having an issue with the topic of gay marriage.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2013


One side sees it as about human rights, the other side sees it as a mockery of something that to them is an earthly representation of the relationship to Christ and His church

...and refuses to acknowledge that those of us who don't subscribe to their particular interpretation of Scripture (or any interpretation at all, for that matter) cannot and should not be forced by secular law to live by religious rules that (ought to) apply only to followers of that interpretation of that religious belief.

What is "respect"? Is it disrespectful of me to say that I think Cathy is a big jerk for thinking I'm not worthy of equal rights? Is that more or less disrespectful than Cathy himself saying that he does not think I deserve rights he has, even though we don't live in the sort of theocracy he'd like to see?
posted by rtha at 8:50 PM on February 1, 2013 [6 favorites]


and refuses to acknowledge that those of us who don't subscribe to their particular interpretation of Scripture (or any interpretation at all, for that matter) cannot and should not be forced by secular law to live by religious rules that (ought to) apply only to followers of that interpretation of that religious belief.

I really don't have that much of a problem with that. I expect gay people to be for gay marriage, and I am not going to tell YOU how you should feel about the topic, or how to vote, or whatever.

What I object to (and here I can only speak for myself) is the expectation that a Christian can be forced to change their deeply held religious beliefs because it is expected in the secular realm. Yes, of course you have the right as a secular person to think my beliefs are ridiculous. What you don't have the right to do is force me to change my beliefs to suit yours. You do have the right to expect me to treat you with respect, of course.

Now, let's extend this to Chickfila. You have the right to decide you don't want to patronize that business because the founder is a Christian. But I don't think anyone has the right to tell him that he has to change his beliefs to suit anyone else. As long as he treats his employees -both gay and straight-well, as long as he serves chicken to anyone-both gay and straight-who patronizes his restaurant, my personal thought is that people should just let him sell his chicken and eat elsewhere if it suits them better.

There are companies that give money to organizations that I do not support. I can either shop with their competitors or I can realize that companies are made up of lots of workers with lots of opinions and figure that if I buy something at Home Depot maybe someone else can have waffle fries without guilt.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 9:09 PM on February 1, 2013


*for instance, it is possible to believe that gay people should not be discriminated against in areas such as employment and housing, while still having an issue with the topic of gay marriage.

Anything is possible. Doesn't make it right.
posted by blucevalo at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


What I object to (and here I can only speak for myself) is the expectation that a Christian can be forced to change their deeply held religious beliefs because it is expected in the secular realm.

Personally, I don't expect this; maybe other folks here do. Hold all the beliefs you want about stuff.

I do expect you (and me) to act as if we live in a a country where we can't use the force of law to make people obey a particular religious doctrine. The passing of marriage equality laws will not require you or Cathy to go out and get gay married; they do not require your church to marry people it doesn't want to marry. You can still have marriage as a sacrament. And I can have it as a civil right.
posted by rtha at 9:28 PM on February 1, 2013 [11 favorites]


I oppose eating meat. I oppose it not just for myself--I oppose other people eating meat too. But I don't think the force of government should be used to prevent people from eating meat. You do see where I am going with this, don't you?
posted by layceepee


Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:29 PM on February 1, 2013


St. Alia of the Bunnies: "the other side sees it as a mockery of something that to them is an earthly representation of the relationship to Christ and His church. "

*How* is it a mockery? "The relationship to Christ and his Church is described as a marriage as a metaphor--there were marriages before there were Christ and before the church, and marriage served as a useful reference. Second, Christ, and the Church, are separate entities which are not on equal standing...so, then, are marriages therefore between entities of unequal standing?

Is the marriage of a couple of Jews a mockery of the Christ/Church "relationship"? Muslims? Hindus? Non-believers?

No-one is forcing any religious entity to marry a same-sex couple; why should same-sex couple be bound by the strictures of a religion that neither member of the couple subscribe to?
posted by notsnot at 11:47 AM on February 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


"the other side sees it as a mockery of something that to them is an earthly representation of the relationship to Christ and His church."

I am also "the other side." You don't speak for me or for my church. Far from it.

The United Church of Christ celebrates marriage for all!
Marriage is one of the most significant institutions in our culture. The sacred and civil, church and state dimensions of marriage are complex and often muddled, which makes marriage one of the most challenging issues to discuss in the church and beyond.

On July 4, 2005, at the 25th General Synod of the United Church of Christ in Atlanta, delegates voted to adopt the resolution, "Equal Marriage Rights for All." [PDF]
posted by ericb at 12:37 PM on February 2, 2013 [5 favorites]


I have no problem with Cathy being a Christian. I wouldn't care if he worshiped the Devil, for that matter. It is of no concern to me. He runs a good restaurant chain. I do have a problem with him being a bigot who used some of the money I gave him to promote discrimination against a group of people who have been discriminated against more than enough already. Knowing that he will use any more money that I give him means that I can't eat his waffle fries without guilt, regardless of where you get your home improvement supplies.

Marriage is both religious and civil. Your church bestows it upon its members as a sacrament. The government bestows rights upon married people. No one says that your church must bestow its religious sacrament contrary to its beliefs. Saying that allowing gay people to have the same civil rights and religious rights in a church other than yours somehow detracts from your religious rights is a logical fallacy.
posted by double block and bleed at 1:09 PM on February 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


This isn't about religious rights, it's about differing groups differing on what constitutes right and wrong.

The poster upthread used veganism as an example-he believes it is wrong to eat meat, he also believes it is wrong for others to eat meat. He agrees it would be wrong for the government to coerce people into not eating meat. I would presume he would also believe it to be wrong to have to, for example vote to give people permission to eat meat. And I have a feeling he would strongly object to being told, if he owned a restaurant, that his restaurant would be required to serve meat. Even if he, himself, would not have to eat any of it himself.

Meanwhile, lots and lots of carnivores would be accusing him of being hateful, of not wanting their children to have animal protein, and having a fit because he was donating a share of his restaurant profits to PETA.

For those of us who believe we are accountable to a higher power, we are constrained not to support anything we believe our higher power (in my case, the Christian God) would object to. It isn't that we want to rob anyone of their rights, yes, people have rights to do things I do not wish to do, or cannot do, and it is not my place to force them not to do them.

For me, personally, it is like walking across a razor blade. I think that many Christians don't treat gay people right (I mean, they quote the first chapter of Romans and conveniently leave out the second chapter that reminds them-or should remind them-that none of us escapes the stain of sin in this life, and that just maybe we should stop feeling all high and mighty and superior.)

But I think it is just as wrong for people to hate Cathey for his views as it is for people to hate gay people for theirs. And probably just about as difficult for people on either side to see the similarity.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 3:59 PM on February 2, 2013


*How* is it a mockery? "The relationship to Christ and his Church is described as a marriage as a metaphor--there were marriages before there were Christ and before the church, and marriage served as a useful reference. Second, Christ, and the Church, are separate entities which are not on equal standing...so, then, are marriages therefore between entities of unequal standing?


Small point here: Jesus has always coexisted as part of the Trinity, even before He was born of a virgin. And the Bible does call the metaphor a mystery-but please understand it really is a big deal in our theology. We are getting into God's purposes from the foundation of the world, etc.

But yeah, I don't want to argue about the Bible, just explain that to a lot of us that it is no small thing.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:02 PM on February 2, 2013


The poster upthread used veganism as an example-he believes it is wrong to eat meat, he also believes it is wrong for others to eat meat. He agrees it would be wrong for the government to coerce people into not eating meat. I would presume he would also believe it to be wrong to have to, for example vote to give people permission to eat meat.

If he really agrees that it's wrong for the government coerce vegetarianism, then he would have no problem voting against government-enforced vegetarianism.

And I have a feeling he would strongly object to being told, if he owned a restaurant, that his restaurant would be required to serve meat. Even if he, himself, would not have to eat any of it himself.

Once again, NO ONE, not one person in this entire country, is calling for any church to marry or recognize the marriages of gay people. Not one single person. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.
posted by dirigibleman at 5:47 PM on February 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


is calling for the government to require any church to marry or recognize the marriages of gay people.
posted by dirigibleman at 5:56 PM on February 2, 2013


[Not everyone may know this, but certain members have been asked not to have this conversation here, and I'm removing some comments in the spirit of that request.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:52 AM on February 3, 2013


John S. Dickerson | The Washington Post: What Conservative Christians Should Learn From Dan Cathy
... Cathy’s intentional and gracious friendship with Shane L. Windmeyer is a model of how all American Christians, high and low profile, should begin in dialog with the gay community.

The fury between America’s LGBT and Christian communities has ignited as the cultural flashpoint of our day. From the Chick-fil-A protests to the ousting of Louie Giglio from the presidential inauguration, Americans on all sides are frustrated, angry and afraid to broach this fiery clash.

Cathy’s friendship, chronicled from Windmeyer’s point of view, is a refreshing picture of what Jesus Christ might do—were he physically here with us in America today. In 1 Corinthians 11:1 the Apostle Paul tells Christians “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” On this matter, I say to American Christians, “Follow Dan Cathy’s example, as he follows the example of Christ.”

Conservative and evangelical Christians often speak of our “response” to homosexuality. But, when we look at the life of Christ, we see that his outreach to humanity was not reactive. It was proactive. “We love him because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). God did not claim to love from a distance. He humbled himself and stepped physically into our lives (Philippians 2:3-11).

If we are serious about following Christ, we must begin loving first, with humility. We must initiate literal get-togethers, as Cathy did. We must reach out, not with public statements and position papers, but with incarnate friendship. Love was the leading edge of God’s invasion into humanity (John 3:16).

Love, we know, is patient and kind (1 Corinthians 13:4), and this is where many conservative Christians falter in dialoging with homosexuals. Fear makes us defensive, constricted and impatient. But Scripture tells us that “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). As Christ’s agents on earth “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, of love and of self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7).
posted by ericb at 11:54 AM on February 3, 2013


I don't hate Cathy. He has a right to believe whatever he wants. I'm just not going to give him money to do something that I find abhorrent. I'm not judging him for his beliefs. I'm modifying my behavior (not eating at a restaurant that I really like) in response to his actions. Being nice to one gay person doesn't seem to make up for his actions against the gay community as a whole.

Reiterating what was said above, I can't see how granting gay people the right to marry impinges on your religious rights. Im not sure how youve come to that conclusion. Your church can choose not to perform or recognize these marriages. Is there something that I'm missing from your point of view?
posted by double block and bleed at 2:23 PM on February 3, 2013


« Older "As far as I’m aware, nobody that term recorded Ma...  |  "You are so cute I could just ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments