Last time I checked, this is America and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I support gay marriage 110%. I also feel that the Cathy family has the right to believe whatever they want. It's funny to me how everyone loves the right to free speech until someone says something that they don't want to hear.

Good point, Chris. The issue can generate a complex discussion. However, you said it succinctly--OK with same-sex "marriage" and OK with Cathy saying what he wants. BTW--for those thinking he was on a soap box--he was answering someone else's question directly...he didn't raise the issue. Anyway--I love the chain--and its impeccability comes from somewhere...don't care where.

It's not that Dan Cathy "doesn't support gay marriage" (which, by the way, affects him HOW?), it's that his organization actively supports hate-filled anti-gay organizations.

For a so-called christian organization, there seems a disconnect when it is against love.

WOW! Big shock. Chick Fil A, which doesn't open on Sunday because of their religious beliefs, doesn't support gay marriage. Huge shock!!

I will continue to eat at CFA, as much as I ever did. I expect they aren't too worried about those who won't.

Nancy - CFA is a business,not an organization, yes? And could you pls be more specific....what hate-filled anti-gay organizations does CFA support? And does CFA support these unnamed orgs you mentioned or does Truett and Dan Cathy as private individuals? Please clarify if you can or perhaps you are repeating a media sound bite that didnt provide actual fact? Whether I agree with Mr. Cathy or Brad Pitt's mom, I thought we lived in a country where freedom of speech and diversity of beliefs was the goal of the US as a nation. Oh...until those beliefs are in opposition to the left? Or the media? Or Hollywood? Or even the majority? I go to CFA to eat, not to discuss politics. I am certain if I talk to anyone long enough, I will disagree with them on some issue even people of my religion and political party which is a good thing - we should not be locked into views 100% based on groups we belong to but have a free thinking mind but my point is - if I banned businesses, people, movies, shops, etc based on views different than my own, I would never leave my house!!! I commend all that put their views out there based on their basic right to do so. As said above, free speech is great until someone says something you dont want to hear and that is what we are hearing about CFA from those folks that are always screaming diversity....until it is not their diversity!!!

Here is a link to the charities that Chick-Fil-A supports and what they have done in the past.
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201111010001

I agree with CFA. Seems like gays want to bully people to agree with their perverted and disgusting ways. Hats of to Mr. Cathy to standing up for what he believes in and not being bullied by the gays like Obama was.

You think that the gay issue is shocking. I was shocked to find out that the Cathy Family owns a cattle ranch in GA that sells beef. I haven't eatin' there since. http://www.therockranch.com/indx-about.html

Why can't a chicken sandwich be just a chicken sandwich?

The first amendment still stands and owning a business doesn't nullify it. In addition, having an opinion is not the same as being intolerant. Cathy is entitled to his opinion and has never refused to serve anyone because they are gay. The hysterical reaction to this has been representative of the hypersensitivity and intolerance of much of the gay community and almost all of the gay leadership. They want tolerance - they should practice tolerance. Saying you do not approve of something is still okay in American and we should reject any groups efforts to change that. In fact, these overly intense responses have a negative effect. If you don't want to eat there because you don't like the food fine, to organize and encourage a boycott is obnoxious and uncalled for. Enough with the bullying.

John - your example illustrates my point while at the same time misses the point. The reason people consider most of the gay community and their most ardent supporters intolerant is because they have become more and more so. I deal with lots of men who are sexist to varying degrees - none of us are perfect and we are not going to agree on all issues personal and political. I don't spend all my time "righting injustices" done in the name of sexism. And as the gay community has become more intolerant and strident, Hollywood may be bow to their insistence that to not be marching with a rainbow flag 24/7 is to be lower than dirt, most people recognize that there are degrees of awareness and agreement on most issues. It's how you treat others that matters and the founder and leadership of chick-fil-a are wonderful examples of people who lead good lives and do good. Many of us don't consider Hollywood or Washington to be the arbiters of morality and goodness. As they have become more intolerant of a diversity of opinions we have become less interested in their opinion. You seem like a nice guy. I don't care whether you are gay or straight. Live your life as a good person and we're good. But don't try to tell me what I should believe or label me if I don't agree with you. If you can't see the fairness in that, then you must be in a leadership position in the gay community.

John, I will answer your question and would request that you respond to my answer. As in, I would like to know whether you find holding such views acceptable. Is it wrong to apply a label to a comment or opinion - no. I don't think it is wrong to label something - what I find wrong and disturbing is the demonizing of opinions that do not conform to your own. What I and someone else might find sexist or racist may differ - there are gray areas. Many conservatives are labeled as racists for their opposition to Pres. Obamas policies. Do I find that wrong - yes. Are those who are doing so using their personal yardstick or even misusing the label for personal or political reasons. Sometimes. You state that I'm saying it's wrong to describe someone who opposes legal rights for gay people as anti-gay. Legal rights, as in housing, employment and such or legal rights as in the right to change the definition of marriage to suit their personal desires. I am straight and Christian and long before it was fashionable stood up for "gay rights." As in, people have the right to live where they want, when they want, work where they are qualified and live without ridicule or intimidation. As far as "gay marriage" - just don't see it. It feels like the issue is really a demand for approval of a lifestyle of which I don't approve. No civil unions - that's all back of the bus for you. I find the unwillingness to consider another point of view very off-puting.

There is no "unwillingness to consider another point of view" here. There is an unwillingness to treat a point of view which is discriminatory as being on equal ground.

In the same manner, I will not fall for the deceit of it just being about marriage. That may be true for some individuals... at least until they bother to examine their positions more closely. It's never true for organizations, and very rarely true of arguments used against same sex marriage. (And the whole bit about "changing the definition" is a meaningless rephrasing. Define something as excluding this, then say it can't include it because it's defined as excluding it. If that's not begging the question precisely, it's close enough.) Virtually every argument against gay marriage is really an argument against gay sex and/or gay orientation; the exceptions are appeals to tradition, which is also a logical fallacy. This includes your own claims: the line about "approval of a lifestyle of which I don't approve" gives it away. The arguments fall roughly into two categories: "I don't like it," which is as irrelevant to determining other people's legal rights as your preference for mayonnaise over ketchup, or "God doesn't like it," which is irrelevant in any system which claims to value religious freedom.

As far as I'm concerned, holding any views you like is fine by me. Acting in a way that harms people, including denying them the same legal rights other people have INCLUDING marriage, is not.

For anyone that had no idea that CFA was not supportive of gay marriage prior to all this, are you living in a cave??

Regarding where CFA puts its money: is CFA actively encouraging the genocide of gays, or inciting hatred of gays around the world??

There are numerous large US companies that actually supported the 3rd Reich during WWII, and some of them continue to support its bigotry today. This troubles me more than CFA's support for male-female marriage. If we're going to scrutinize companies based on where they put their money, there are companies that actually support the bullying/death/disenfranchisement of people around the world. CFA is not one of them.

Why isn't anyone outraged over businesses run by people of other religion(s) that are notoriously homophobic?

John, thanks for stating your true feelings. Unless someone approves and embraces the gay marriage strong-arm they are discriminating. Not believing that gay marriage is needed is not discriminatory anymore than not believing polygamy is a good idea. Or are you the kind of "hater" that wants new rules for me but not for thee? Not seeing gay marriage as a good thing is not harming anyone. You have the same legal rights available and have been sleeping with whoever you want for how long? You are insisting that you are "right" while taking offense if others do the same. How tolerant. In addition to religious freedom in America, we have the first amendment. You claim it and so do I. We don't agree so you must be a heterophobe and an intolerant bigot.

Personally, I have always thought their food sucked and was highly overrated when compared to others like Bojangles, Popeye's and KFC. It a fried piece of chicken with no flavor. Oh, that’s right; the pickle slice provides the flavor! That being said, when Cathy makes a conscience decision to mix business with religion, he opens himself up for support for some and backlash from others. He has the right to express his views and the public has a right to reject his business.
He has invaded my alma mater where he sits on the board and in some opinions, made Berry College too financially dependent on Cathy and which in turn has compromised the ability for Berry to attract a broader student candidate pool, thus losing some competitive edge over more secular oriented private schools by attracting top candidates. Again business decisions have repercussions. Shorter College is another example of a failed attempt to inject religious philosophy into business. Shorter is now shorter on student enrollment and faculty. Good decision?
As many people, I think he stands on the wrong side of the argument and I am sure his PR personnel are working overtime. I personally will not eat there, because the food sucks and the owner feels a need to inject religion into my order of fries. It will likely go the same way as the Krispy Kreme fad, into the crapper, when a national market tastes their food.

John, thanks for your answer. I used the labels heterophobe and bigot because those are similar or like those thrown around by those who have decided anything less than full support for changing the marriage laws to include gays are worthy of insult. Clearly you and I do not agree. I don't see gays as an underclass shut out by society and therefore being entitled to special rights. You obviously see the issue differently. You are entitled to work for your outcome as am I. As for stripping away rights - I can't take away something that isn't there. Gay advocates are for creating something new. You have dismissed many of my statements and arguments and frankly I find yours hollow and false. As far as labeling gay marriage a civil right - many civil rights leaders find the comparison false. We can dance all day, but the bottom line is I'm not going to convert you and you will not convert me. I do think that a civilized discussion is never a bad thing.

People vote with their dollars...Looks to me like Chck's doin just fine...

You've got to be pretty small and partisan to object to a company that operates as stated :
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

They support charities that support traditional values. That is not a crime or cause for censure by reasonable people.

The mayor of Boston is an idiot and everyone should push back.

Responding to a comment by Ann Wood which I cannot find....

"I don't see gays as an underclass shut out by society and therefore being entitled to special rights."
---I, too, appreciate civilized discussion, especially when it's all honest and above board. So perhaps, since you say you do as well, you will answer a question that most people simply ignore when I ask: why do you refer to this as "special" rights? I don't want special rights. I want gay people, including our relationships, to be treated *exactly the same* as straight people and theirs. Please explain why that is demanding "special" rights, rather than equal ones.

"As for stripping away rights - I can't take away something that isn't there."---Of course not. I didn't say anything about stripping away rights, either. But the constitution promises equal treatment, and right now we don't have it. That's simply wrong, no matter how long it's been true.

"Gay advocates are for creating something new."--This statement is simply false on its face. We do not want something new. We want inclusion in something old. We want to add on ourselves, in a manner wholly consistent with its current modern form as a union of equals, to the existing concept of marriage; meanwhile, for reasons inexplicable to me (so perhaps you'll explain them) we are repeatedly and falsely depicted as attempting to demolish marriage entirely and replace it with something else totally unlike it except for the name.

I've looked through some of the links and I'm unable to find where CFA is supporting the genocide or oppression of gays. They make it clear: CFA supports the biblical definition of marriage, which is a man and a woman.

There are places in the world where gays and others are horribly oppressed. Surely this 'bigoted' and 'gay hating' company would be supporting these types of things, no??

I worked closely with a fifty-something gay man (in a long term relationship) that gave me much insight. He's not very political and doesn't care much about this issue one way or another. When he and his partner were younger (and 'hotter'), they basically didn't care if the other brought another guy home occasionally, as long as the guest didn't sleep over.

My coworker and his partner were committed to each other, but he openly admitted that since they're both dudes, he openly admitted that they didn't quite have the same 'checks and balances' that a typical M-F relationship has (women tend not to like their husbands bringing home other women).

It made sense: unisex relationships are NOT the same as opposite sex relationships. The woman tends not let her husband cheat. And this has been the foundation of successful societies for thousands of years. And IMO, gays are flat out lying when they portray otherwise.

IMO, CFA's position is the one held by most Americans and is the default: marriage is between a man and a woman.

John For statements that are on their face false -
"We do not want something new. We want inclusion in something old. We want to add on ourselves." Oh, is that all. You just want to add on to the classic definition of marriage. Let's do this. This is all semantics - call it new or call it old it changes marriage as it has been known in our country and culture and "adds" on a group that have now redefined marriage. I have nowhere said that it would demolish marriage. That's hyperbole and those are your words. But it does change what has been the traditional definition and to deny that is "on it's face false." As for equal treatment - what you're demanding is special treatment not equal. As I said, I have not said gay marriage would demolish marriage but to insist that gay marriage and hetero marriage are the same thing is nonsense. Marriage is the foundation of society, the unit in which children are raised and nurtured. Look what the rise in divorce has done for the family and society - nothing good. No thanks to more experiments based on feel good psychology and changing mores.

John, I'm not refusing anything. You are equally responsible to define why it is equal not special. But to answer your question, to change the parameters from the biblical definition to one that suits the times based on our determination that we know more is a big change and requires going outside the long held definition. There is nothing in marriage law that requires expanding the definition and so there is no "equal." There is only special allowances hence the special. I'm going out on a limb here to say that I'm sure you don't see it that way. But then it doesn't serve your agenda to see any point of view other than your own. I personally don't care about personal choices, I do think it is a very bad idea to alter in such a dramatic way the definition of marriage. And I also don't care what labels you or others want to put on that. Again, along with many traditionalists, I am over being bullied.

Bla Bla Bla who cares. If this ends up affecting my next trip to Chick Fil A I'm going to be upset!

I also will continue to patronize Chick-fil-a since, as stated before, I do not look to them for moral guidance, only kick ass chicken sandwiches. On a side note, I also happen to admire the wholesomeness of the chain, I love how polite and articulate the employees are, the stores are ALWAYS clean and any restaurant who is kind/brave/bold/generous enough to close for one day a week so tha people can have a day off with their families to go to church or whatever they choose to do gets an A+++++ in my book. I believe in our country and I believe in liberty and freedom. I believe that gay people should be able to marry. I believe that people should be able to donate their hard won profits to organizations and charities that they see fit, so long as it does not cause harm to people and this country. And no,I do not believe Chick-fil-a intended for their (small) $ 2 million donations amongst the pro-family organizations will even make a dent in the fight for gay marriage rights. If anything, all of this resulting saber rattling and drum beating will bring more attention to the cause for fighting for marriage equality. People should not be wasting their time complaining about a very measly $ 2 million donation that is divided amongst a variety of quite benign and peaceful Christian organizations thinking that it will have any impact at all on this battle. Focus your attention where it will count. Change the laws. You will never change the mind of the Cathy family.

And nor should you. They have a right to believe what they believe just as you have a right to believe what you believe.

Or..... d. None of the above
I happen to believe that gay families are every bit as much of a family as any family.
I have to say that I find it very distasteful and downright rude that you choose to attack or put words into the mouth of any person who dares to have a viewpoint that deviates from yours. You want freedom for yourself as a gay man (and I want for you to have that too) but you don't want for other people to be able to have the freedom to express their views (I want for them to be able to do that too). This falls into the same pathetic category as people labeling other people who don't approve of President Obama's performance in office as racist.

It's so sad to see a great company like Chick-fil-A under attack for having the temerity to disagree with the "popular" philosophy today regarding gay marriage. This is an issue that touches on the most deeply held beliefs from religious to families with loved ones who are gay. It is possible to know or love someone who is gay, be a supporter and at the same believe that cultural changes that leave faith out of them are not in anyone's long term benefit. How sad that so many on the left stridently refuse to consider any point of view other than their own.

Ann , no one cares about your religious beliefs. This is not Iran nor are we under religious law.

H Levy, you seems to be confused. Religious freedom means freedom practice religion or to practice no religion. Your reference to Iran and religious law in reference to my comment shows you to be the zealot.

John, Chick-fil-A's actions are above reproach. Nowhere are they being charged of mistreatment of gays. You are holding them to a standard that is so rigid and unreasonable that you undermine your cause and your credibility.

While it is nice to see everyone expressing their opinion on the matter, there is something far more important to be concerned with. Instead of worrying about all the donations that CFA makes to these controversial organizations, we should make ourselves aware of which politicians receive campaign contributions from these groups. After all, these people have much more control over our lives than a fast food chain.

If you dont agree with what they do, then dont eat there... how difficult is this? No one should be under personal attack on either side of the matter... someone offended a group of people because he doesnt have the same beliefs as them. not the first time, wont be the last. get over it.

John Sergent, two pieces of advice for you:

1. Don't eat at Chick-fil-a
2. Donate your time and money to organizations that you believe promote your personal agenda

It's your right. It's that simple. (It is also the right of those who feel differently than you do to do the same).

John, I'm tired to trying to answer your "questions" when a. you're not even sort of interested in any opinion that isn't your own, and b. it hasn't escaped notice that you don't answer any questions. So, questions for you - why the tireless vendetta against people who obviously treat others according to the golden rule but give to organizations of which you don't approve - why no perspective. Why the Hate? Why the vitriol? Why the hyper-sensitivity? Why the total lack of tolerance?

Sorry, to edit a bit... the second sentence should read "you haven't given me a fair chance on that score, because you have refused to provide logical *reasons* for the opinions you express even when directly asked, nor, when I've given reasons potential arguments you might use are, in my opinion, invalid, have you even tried to refute that logically.

Ann, some people just like to argue and having a meaningful and open discussion is not possible. Unless you agree with them on all points, you will always be displeasing and inferior to them. It's a lose-lose situation. Your points have been very well articulated, Ann, but unfortunately not everybody has chosen to receive them in the spirit in which they were intended. Sorry!

Geez, some of you people have printed some really ridiculous comments....

Chick-fil-a is against love and that Ann Ann believes in talking snakes and people that lived in whales.

Don't you realize that you lose all credibility when you go off on crazy ranting tangents like this?

How in the world you equate exercising first amendment and freedom to donate your hard earned money where you see fit to living in Iran is a less credible argument than a squirrel might make.

Come on, people! You are hurting your own cause.

Believe in God,and accept Jesus as your personal savior, it's a win, win choice.
My choice is the one above,and to eat more chickin..

Omar Hallum: "Do you not support any organization you wish?"--Of course. Would you mind explaining why you imply that anyone here is saying they don't have the right to do that?

"Would it be right to 'boycott' you because of that?" If you want to. Boycotting simply means choosing for yourself where to spend your money. Surely, based on your overall tone, that's a good thing to be able to do in your book?

"...without any recourse..." Legally, yes. You can't sue a business for donating to causes, no matter how disgusting they are (and the AFA really is nasty, if you bother looking into them.) The government can't tell them who to support and who not to. That doesn't mean that people who don't like where their money goes are being unfair or unreasonable in choosing to do business elsewhere.

"I believe it is a private owned business, and the government has no ownership rights (although they are trying to CHANGE that.)"---Would you mind, please, providing evidence of the claim that the government (or better yet, specifically the president) is trying to take over Chick-fil-A? It sounds too off the wall to take seriously, but if it's true then the sooner people find out about it the better.

I applaud CFA for standing by their beliefs.
Who cares if the butt pluggers boycott or not.

Sadly, the PR Director/National Spokesman for Chick-fil-a died suddenly this morning of a heart attack. He was a very nice man who was doing his job and standing up for what he believed in. Who is to say what the cause was but I am guessing all of the controversy and vitriol that he was having to muddle through was just too much.

http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/27/4131438/longtime-chick-fil-a-spokesman.html

John, you think his company is wrong - that is very different from the declarative that they are wrong. You reject that anyone has the right to say that homosexuality is wrong. What gives you the right to call CFA wrong? You like to ask questions, there's one for you. How is that not a double standard? And please, John, follow your stated standards - your reasons have to be logical to all not just to you.