A “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-A tomorrow?

posted at 11:36 am on August 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

One day after having the best sales day in its history, Chick-fil-A will have to prepare itself for a counter-protest to yesterday’s “appreciation day” by those outraged over threats made by mayors and city council members in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and New York (Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not join his colleagues in the other cities).  Supporters of same-sex marriage will stage “kiss-ins” at Chick-fil-A locations tomorrow, if a Facebook-organized protest succeeds:

Yesterday’s banner turnout at Chick-fil-A restaurants for free speech rights — with thousands of people nationwide and hundreds in the Bay State’s two locations lining up to buy chicken sandwiches — has turned up the heat on gay rights activists who hope to draw similar crowds for tomorrow’s kiss-in protest at the suddenly controversial fast-food chain.

“We planned an action a few years ago and we only expected 50 people but 500 showed. We’re crossing our fingers for that kind of support again,” said Ian Struthers of grassroots group Join the Impact Massachusetts, who plans to pucker up tomorrow at the Burlington Mall Chick-fil-A for national Same-Sex Kiss Day.

Gay rights advocates are using Facebook to organize the kiss-in in protest of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage and the millions of dollars they say the company has donated to anti-gay groups.

The Bay State group plans to hand out fake coupons to customers for a “free side of bigotry” during the Friday night protest.

Well, good luck with that — and I’m not being entirely flippant, either.  This protest has been rumored since at least last week, before supporters loosely organized the “appreciation day” yesterday, but seem to be having difficulty coordinating it. Even if it does get off the ground tomorrow, it’s very unlikely to approach the level of support shown by fans of Chick-fil-A and/or free speech and free exercise of religious expression yesterday.  A weak showing tomorrow would be worse than skipping the protest entirely, as we saw with the failed Occupy movements, whose spring offensive never materialized after being mostly ignored after the first couple of weeks of protesting last fall.

However, there is nothing wrong with protesting over Chick-fil-A’s political connections or ownership’s political views, as long as protestors obey the law in doing so.  That is a perfectly acceptable free-speech, free-market approach to disagreement within commerce.  I’d rather see kiss-ins than lawsuits, for instance, and certainly more than seeing politicians extort businessmen to support their political agendas, as is exactly what Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel attempted to do in Boston and Chicago, respectively.  Protests that don’t block customers from accessing the business or act violently are a good release valve for a free society.  Pro-life activists have picketed abortion mills for decades — and often had to fight courts for that same right.  LGBT activists have just as much right to protest Chick-fil-A.

Mike Huckabee, who helped promote yesterday’s appreciation day, agrees:

Huckabee said he sees nothing wrong with “National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick Fil A,” although he is skeptical of the strategy.

“Probably I won’t be there for that,” Huckabee said. “But so what? That’s America. As long as they’re orderly, as long as they don’t disrupt the flow of customers and traffic — if they believe that will help their cause, to put people of the same sex kissing each other in a public place in front of families, if they believe that will encourage people to be more sympathetic, then, you know, more power to them.

“In America, I believe people have a right to do things that I might not agree with,” he continued. “What I don’t want to do is shut down the voices of Christians because they don’t like those voices.”

In America, we used to take that for granted.  Unfortunately, the cities of Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco elected politicians who forgot that America doesn’t require an oath to support The Party as a condition of engaging in commerce.  In my new column for The Fiscal Times, I point out that this is an essential ingredient in America’s success from the start by guaranteeing equal treatment and regulation regardless of religious belief or political temperament, and that we risk a lot more than a missed chicken filet sandwich if we forget that:

Until now, we have welcomed people of all faiths and creeds into the marketplace as long as they observed rational and reasonable regulation intended to prevent fraud, theft, and abuse, but without trampling on their ability to abide by their beliefs.  In return, a large number of people bring their capital and talent to our markets and generate wealth, jobs, stability, infrastructure, and an increased tax base to our communities.  If we force these people to take their capital and exit these markets, it will result in seriously degraded economies, restriction on choice, fewer jobs, less demand, and a lower standard of living – not to mention keep some of the most talented people from addressing the difficult issues that we face.

Our founders understood that explicitly. They saw the disruptions and damage done by religious tests not just for office but also for commerce, and acted to ensure that our governments would not impose such systems on Americans.  For more than two hundred years, that freedom transformed us into the most powerful nation in the world, economically, militarily, and politically.  Imposing a test for political correctness that excludes tens of millions of faithful Americans cannot help but undermine all that progress as well as our natural rights as citizens.

If government has grown so powerful as to be able to impose and prosecute such tests, then that may be the clearest indication yet that government has grown too large and intrusive to the detriment of all.

Instapundit wrote today that he’s less worried about the impact on our economic health than on the First Amendment — and I agree.  But it’s worth considering the kind of damage that the demand for political and religious orthodoxy as a condition of doing business will have on us in the long run.

Meanwhile, at Patheos, Fr. Dwight Longenecker marvels at the success of yesterday’s protest — and then decides it wasn’t really a protest as much as a rally as an expression of “ordinary” Americanism:

The Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day yesterday was historic. It  was historic because it marks a new method of mass protest. I even hesitate to use the word ‘protest’ because it wasn’t a protest. There wasn’t any anger. There wasn’t any hate. There wasn’t any bullying. There were no unwashed crowds of unhappy people holding a sit in and causing other people stress, inconvenience and expense. There were no protest signs, no marches, no noise makers and attention grabbers. There were no revolutionary slogans, no clenched fists, no class warfare, no sullen adolescents in a stroppy mood.

The classic signs of a protest movement were absent. If they were not actually violent revolutions, the great protest movements in history have often had violent undertones. Subtle threats were made. Bullying tactics, financial and political pressure was exerted. Guns were wielded. Behind the scenes in smoke filled rooms men did deals and crossed swords to determine the future of millions. In the great revolutions hoards of unhappy people filled the streets, rioting and on the rampage they took what they wanted, killed who they wanted and in misplaced zeal for justice overturned an established order. …

Yesterday’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was the sort of ‘revolt’ this country needs, but it was even better than the non violent revolutions and peaceful protests which have changed the world because it was so ordinary. It was just plain, ordinary Americans getting in their cars and doing a plain, ordinary American thing: going out for lunch to a fast food joint. It was just plain, ordinary Americans doing something plain and ordinary, but positive and joyful and good. In buying an ordinary tasty chicken sandwich at their corner fast food emporium ordinary Americans were expressing the wish to be left alone to be ordinary Americans.

After two weeks of highly anti-American behavior by elected officials who should know better, it’s good to see Americans acting like Americans — especially in large numbers.  That’s true even of the kiss-in, to whatever extent it succeeds.  Let’s debate politics and religious values, while allowing everyone to come to market and make their own choices about who and what to engage there.  That is what liberty is all about.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

nathor on August 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Bless your heart.

Maybe Nickelodeon is more your speed.

cozmo on August 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I’m a Christian first, conservative second and Republican a distant third.

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Yes!

INC on August 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Marriage did not begin with religion…it was a more accurate way to see one’s lineage, and acted like a census.

Yeah and this is still the ONLY reason for the state to get involved in private relationships… Biological children.

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Personally, I have no problem with “gay marriage” as long as they call it something else.

The Rogue Tomato on August 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I’m having a hard time even making that compromise. To allow for any government sanctioned union between two people of the same sex seems, IMO, to be giving the same value to this alternate lifestyle as is given to traditional marriage. I think traditional marriage should always be held in the highest regard…as it is the only truly beneficial relationship in any society. It deserves to be singled out as the only relationship that a government recognizes and condones.

lynncgb on August 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I’m not belittling yesterday’s turn out across the country…proving the power of social networking can have on bringing people together for a cause. What I am saying tho is this particular dust-up with Chick-Fil-A won’t accomplish much in the grand scheme of what really is important, and that’s making sure every American citizen gets equal constitutional protection. This kiss-in junk serves no purpose to that end.
JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I agree with you on the kiss-in, which I think is infantile. But I disagree with your statement that this whole matter isn’t that important in the scheme of things for reasons I stated in my previous comments.

silvernana on August 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM

In Slidell, LA – you COULD NOT get down Gause Ave. yesterday due to the support Chick-Fil-A got. I kid not – it looked to me like a Mardi Gras parade was happening.

I don’t support Chick-Fil-A’s stand on this because I think it’s bad business to take political positions. And also – because … who gives a rat’s ass about homosexual marriage? I don’t. Let them marry – I don’t have to personally accept it as a marriage or ever even call it one myself.

I don’t care.

HondaV65 on August 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

why are we still with the boring chick a fil story, gay rights is a lost culture war, get over it.

nathor on August 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Well the attack on the CEO’s personal held religious beliefs aside, the story isn’t going to go away.

As a aside, why do you claim “gay rights is a lost culture war”? I disagree it’s lost, but that’s just my two nickles…

BlaxPac on August 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Marriage did not begin with religion…it was a more accurate way to see one’s lineage, and acted like a census.

Seeing as God (created the institution, this is a logical inconsistency.

Yeah and this is still the ONLY reason for the state to get involved in private relationships… Biological children.

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Exactly.

Prior to the last few decades, marriage has been defined and recognized across time and across cultures as a relationship between a man and a woman. What we are looking at today is not an inclusion into this institution of those who have been “denied” marriage because of their homosexual activity, but a redefinition of a relationship that is the cornerstone of society, and which societies and countries have protected through legal means because of the understanding and recognition of the importance to society of the mutual and complementary love, enjoyment and support uniquely provided by each sex to the other, and because of the understanding and recognition of the importance of the future of a society through the protection and rearing of children in a family setting in which they learn love, trust, discipline and identity through the unique and different abilities and perspectives of the two sexes.

Tattered as many families and marriages are across this country, our goal as individuals and as a nation should be to support them and assist the strengthening and perpetuity of this institution rather than its destruction. The attempt by those to redefine the institution must, by the very logic of their purpose, also include in the cross hairs, not only the destruction of the definition of the legally recognized marriage relationship, but the destruction of those who defend the marriage relationship.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Let’s say Mitt is elected in November. Does anyone seriously believe for one moment that he is going to reinstate the prohibition on homosexuality in the armed services? Or make a forthright statement that the federal government is not going to subsidize/endorse/celebrate homosexuality from now on? Or call for a new Defense of Marriage Act?

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I know what you’re saying…and it’s a good reason to stand fast on gay marriage.

lynncgb on August 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Baker v. Nelson (1971)

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Thanks for this quote.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Maybe the increase of support for gay marriage is just an expression of “If we let you get married, will you shut up and go away?”

The Rogue Tomato on August 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Problem is, gay marriage is just a beginning, not an end, for the progressive homosexual agenda.

What they want, is already in effect in England and Canada, where any resistance to the homosexual lifestyle will land you in court. It’s already happening here.

Rebar on August 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

HondaV65 on August 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Cfa didn’t take a political stand. The owner made a statement at an event some months ago. The reprobate left waited for an opportune moment to trot it out for campaign donations and drive the news cycle away from the horrible Obama economy.

Its basic alinsky crap. I’m surprised so many fall for it since the lefts agenda is so transparent…

tom daschle concerned on August 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

why are we still with the boring chick a fil story, gay rights is a lost culture war, get over it.

nathor on August 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Do you always go into someone’s house, put your feet up on the coffee table, and tell they what they should serve for dinner?

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM

tell theym

FIFM

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Baker v. Nelson (1971)

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Thanks for this quote.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM

You are very welcome. I usually use it whenever they pull out Loving v. Virginia since the same SCOTUS agreed that gay relationships were not the same as hetero relationships as they found in Baker.

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

We suggest people plan to eat at Chick-Fil-A on Friday (when the gay marriage advocates plans a ‘Kiss-in’??). We support their right to free expression as well, as long as it’s not overly disruptive to other’s right to patronize- and reward- a great family-friendly business. Our ‘counter-protest’ will be with our wallets at the register.
If nothing else, we feel that some families with small children, a big market segment for Chick-Fil-A, will be reluctant to bring their kids someplace where there is overt affection of ANY kind being on display. We ought to make up for those customers.

michaelo on August 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I love how you lump all Chick-Fil-A franchise owners and all Chick-Fil-A employees as having the exact same views as Dan Cathy. When, in reality, there are a lot of franchise owners and Chick-Fil-A employees who are for gay marriage, and there are a lot of gay people who work at Chick-Fil-A.

theoddmanout on August 2, 2012 at 12:38 PM

FYI, all franchisees and employees have a code of conduct that they must follow, which includes the Christian principles which Chick-fil-A prominently follows. My understanding is that if a franchise holder or employee violates that code, they can possibly lose their franchise license or their job. They AGREE to follow that code before they are granted a franchise or a job. This includes serving all customers regardless of said customer’s race, creed, or sexual identity.

chelie on August 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Last December Romney said he would not work to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, because:

Romney indicated that he was “not comfortable with making the change during a time of conflict,” but “complicating features” of the new law “no longer present that problem” because the two wars in the Middle East are winding down.

which was a wimpy excuse. I have not seen anything more recent.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I forgot the link: http://www.militaryculturecoalition.com/content/home

INC on August 2, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I’m a Christian first, conservative second and Republican a distant third.

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM

.
Yes!

INC on August 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

.
Motion is seconded, and carries to the floor:

All those in favor of the statement by dominigan being applied to themselves, say “aye”.

AYE ! ! !

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

What they want, is already in effect in England and Canada, where any resistance to the homosexual lifestyle will land you in court. It’s already happening here.

Rebar on August 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Wasn’t a pastor jailed in Canada for preaching against homosexuality?

OmahaConservative on August 2, 2012 at 2:55 PM

why are we still with the boring chick a fil story, gay rights is a lost culture war, get over it.

nathor on August 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Feeling a little inadequate, child, after the overwhelming turnout yesterday in support of the first amendment?

Get over it.

Chump

MNHawk on August 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Dan Cathy’s opposition to gay marriage was a statement made in a religious journal that had no large readership. The MSM made sure everyone knew what he said in this obscure magazine because they knew it would outrage people. And it did. They strutted, knowing they created the news once again. They managed to irritate a large segment of the country, including a few politicians, to gain a market point. The MSM is the Most Simple Minded entity in this country. I will be glad to see them disappear. The sooner the better.

Ken James on August 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

AYE!!!!

chelie on August 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Marriage did not begin with religion…it was a more accurate way to see one’s lineage, and acted like a census.

.
Yeah and this is still the ONLY reason for the state to get involved in private relationships… Biological children.

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

.
“Recognition” doesn’t constitute “involved”.

The God of the Bible created and instituted marriage. And therefore DEFINED it, whether you call it a religion or not.

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I’ve been enjoying Chick-fil-A chicken sandwiches for 20 years. They are the best Chicken sandwiches. I did not go Wednesday in order to avoid the crowds but went today instead. The parking lot was packed with a long line around the building at the drive through. I read a report at another website that business was up 200% at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday. Thanks Rahm and the other liberal bigots for the free advertising for Chick-fil-A.

Hera on August 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Portia46 on August 2, 2012 at 12:34 PM

“Get a room” is a phrase that applies to straight and gay couples. Most of the country is not like San Francisco. Gays has no right to be obscene in public in front of others’ children, and myself I am hoping for lots of obscenity arrests. it will make the anti-Chick-fil-A Nazis look even worse.

cane_loader on August 2, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Each franchise should have a copy of their local public indecency laws prominently posted on the door or on a big poster affixed to the wall.

PatriotGal2257 on August 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

In Slidell, LA – you COULD NOT get down Gause Ave. yesterday due to the support Chick-Fil-A got. I kid not – it looked to me like a Mardi Gras parade was happening.

I don’t support Chick-Fil-A’s stand on this because I think it’s bad business to take political positions. And also – because … who gives a rat’s ass about homosexual marriage? I don’t. Let them marry – I don’t have to personally accept it as a marriage or ever even call it one myself.

I don’t care.

HondaV65 on August 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Chick-fil-A did not take a stand on this. Their CEO expressed a personal opinion during an unofficial interview. His statements were not made on behalf of CFA at all. The left projected his personal opinion upon the company.

Further, it was unremarkable in every way. Everyone knows CFA is owned by devout Christians–they are even closed on Sunday. His personal opinion on gay marriage was entirely predictable.

stvnscott on August 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

why are we still with the boring chick a fil story, gay rights is a lost culture war, get over it.

nathor on August 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

.
We don’t have to get over “winning”.

Stop projecting.

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Drive through tomorrow, in your big cars, with a “Don’t tread on me” flag.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I do that normally already. Except its a big truck. ; )

Bmore on August 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Do you always go into someone’s house, put your feet up on the coffee table, and tell they what they should serve for dinner?

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Yes, pretty much. LOL!

Bmore on August 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Ed, in your column this morning, you may have made a point you weren’t intending:

we have lost a fundamental liberty: the right to conduct commerce while retaining freedom of religious expression.

Revelation 13:16-18 ESV
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

SDN on August 2, 2012 at 3:05 PM

why are we still with the boring chick a fil story, gay rights is a lost culture war, get over it.

nathor on August 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Kleenex?

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The ‘tolerant’ leftists

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM

It looks like you’re FINALLY realizing that just because someone believes in the traditional definition of marriage doesnt’ mean that they hate gay people.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I do that normally already. Except its a big truck. ; )

Bmore on August 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Trucks were implied, of course.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I think something in the silent majority has been awakened by this CfA thing…a backlash is coming.

d1carter on August 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM

every American citizen gets equal constitutional protection.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Serious question here, no snark intended: How is marriage to anyone a Constitutional right? I just did a quick word search on the text of the Constitution (here) and didn’t find “marriage” in it at all, nor indeed any reference to any kind of interpersonal relationship — not even slavery. Nor did I really expect to, because, broadly speaking the Constitution deals with the functions of the government, the Bill of Rights deals with the rights of the individual, and subsequent amendments do either one or the other.

So, please forgive me, but I don’t see how not permitting same-sex marriage infringes on anyone’s Constitutional rights. Can you explain?

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM

why are we still with the boring chick a fil story, gay rights is a lost culture war, get over it.

nathor on August 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

It’s not about gay rights. It’s about the 1st Amendment. When that is lost, all other will be too.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Aye!

pannw on August 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

If nothing else, we feel that some families with small children, a big market segment for Chick-Fil-A, will be reluctant to bring their kids someplace where there is overt affection of ANY kind being on display. We ought to make up for those customers.

michaelo on August 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Had the same thoughts as well. Two sandwiches tomorrow!

lynncgb on August 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

It’s not about gay rights. It’s about the 1st Amendment. When that is lost, all other will be too.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

This x 1000, and we have to keep shouting it 24/7 until it gets through even the thickest of thick heads!

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

You say this, yet you’ve already admitted that you oppose True Marriage Equality.

blink on August 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Huh? You’re gonna have to refresh my memory there.

Yeah and this is still the ONLY reason for the state to get involved in private relationships… Biological children.

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

It’s an entirely valid argument about leaving “marriage” up to religion, and getting the state out of it completely. There are good points made on that idea from both sides.

But I’m sure you’re aware of entitlement programs, and how difficult they are to rescind once they’re out there. All of the legal benefits under “marriage” would have to go, and as those benefits pretty much amount to an entitlement, they wouldn’t be stricken quietly, for sure.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

The LGBT community is willing to rage at “intolerance” and engage in an in-your-face same-sex “kiss-in” protest at the local Chick-fil-A over support for traditional marriage.

The LGBT community will stage no such “kiss-ins” at the local mosque over Shari’a laws death sentence for gays.

They have enough courage to confront people whom they know damned good and well pose no threat to them no matter how vulgar, boorish, and offensive their conduct. Islamists who actually pose a threat to them, not so much.

Pardon me for not wading through 3+ pages of comments, in case someone has already made this point.

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

If will be interesting to see what goes on at the two Chick-fil-As down here in DeSoto County, MS tomorrow.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

It’s funny, inthemiddleofobamasbuttcheeks made it very clear that she was taking a group to CFA for a kiss-in, always making it clear that she was not a participant. In other words “I support the gays but I want to make it clear that I am not one myself.”

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Important clarification: e.g., tweeting, Some friends are here at CFA just sharing a chick sandwich with me, inthemiddle. could pose some risk of misconstruction.

Barnestormer on August 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I’ve been enjoying Chick-fil-A chicken sandwiches for 20 years. They are the best Chicken sandwiches. I did not go Wednesday in order to avoid the crowds but went today instead. The parking lot was packed with a long line around the building at the drive through. I read a report at another website that business was up 200% at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday. Thanks Rahm and the other liberal bigots for the free advertising for Chick-fil-A.

Hera on August 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I have to wonder about all the other fast-food chains; some of them have to be thinking about taking a traditional marriage stand if that’s where the big money is. Support for gay marriage might get you praise from the proggies but it doesn’t pay the bills.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Our local newspaper reported on the thousands who went to Chick-fil-A here, but it completely ignored and omitted any mention of the 1st Amendment.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Question: With Homosexuals making up less than 5% of Americans, and Gay Activists less than 1%, how are they goling to cover all of the Chick-Fil-A locations?

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

It’s not about gay rights. It’s about the 1st Amendment. When that is lost, all other will be too.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Aside from a few isolated examples…how is this true?
Where is the guy’s 1st amendment right being threatened?
National Organization for Marriage wants to shut down General Mills.
Is Huckabee planning an ‘Everyone Buy Cheerios!’ day?

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The LGBT community is willing to rage at “intolerance” and engage in an in-your-face same-sex “kiss-in” protest at the local Chick-fil-A over support for traditional marriage.

The LGBT community will stage no such “kiss-ins” at the local mosque over Shari’a laws death sentence for gays.

They have enough courage to confront people whom they know damned good and well pose no threat to them no matter how vulgar, boorish, and offensive their conduct. Islamists who actually pose a threat to them, not so much.

Pardon me for not wading through 3+ pages of comments, in case someone has already made this point.

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

No matter, it needs to be said again and again. These gays doing a kiss-in at CFA seem to think they are the equivalent of those little black girls crossing democratic party Governor of Arkansas Orval Faubus to attend Little Rock High School in 1957.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

But even aside from that, where do draw the line on what “traditional marriage” is about? There was a time when, even biblically, that wives were physical property of their husband, and had to be virgin on their wedding day lest they be stoned. Does that make it into the definition of marriage?

Let’s see. Man? WOman? Yep. Hell, even men who have multiple wives is said to have multiple marriages, not one big marriage.

The common demonator? One many and one woman.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Serious question here, no snark intended: How is marriage to anyone a Constitutional right? I just did a quick word search on the text of the Constitution (here) and didn’t find “marriage” in it at all, nor indeed any reference to any kind of interpersonal relationship — not even slavery. Nor did I really expect to, because, broadly speaking the Constitution deals with the functions of the government, the Bill of Rights deals with the rights of the individual, and subsequent amendments do either one or the other.

So, please forgive me, but I don’t see how not permitting same-sex marriage infringes on anyone’s Constitutional rights. Can you explain?

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM

No worries…Same-sex marriage on it’s own isn’t a part of the constitution…nor is any marriage…gay or straight. The constitutional conflict in denying same-sex marriage is found in the 14th amendment with the equal protection clause.

Marriage is a civil…and religious as well…institution that includes a whole plethora of government-sponsored benefits. By excluding same-sex couples, there’s no access to those civil benefits.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Pass out breath mints and wish them a nice Christian Day. That ought to provoke them into crossing the line.

meci on August 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Sorry, but if you don’t get it eitehr, you will pay the consequences later. The MB will show you how.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I’m with you on the free drinks. Great idea, especially since the weather is still hot, and protestors out in the full sunlight are vulnerable to heat exhaustion.

Negative. The media will make that look like you are supporting the kiss-in people.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Question: With Homosexuals making up less than 5% of Americans, and Gay Activists less than 1%, how are they going to cover all of the Chick-Fil-A locations?

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Easy! All they need is for all their Hollywood “hetero” supporters to turn out and join in the same sex “kiss-in” fun!

No? Why not?

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM

So you’re OK with mayors of two major cities trying to keep out a business because of the owner’s stand on an issue?

It’s a 1st Amendment issue because they are government officials making statements, not organizations and individuals.

(Nanny Bloomberg would have been in there, too, but IMO he was waiting to see which way the political wind blew).

INC on August 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Aside from a few isolated examples…how is this true?
Where is the guy’s 1st amendment right being threatened?
National Organization for Marriage wants to shut down General Mills.
Is Huckabee planning an ‘Everyone Buy Cheerios!’ day?

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Those “isolated examples” being government officials (mayors and/or city councilmen) in San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and New York. You do know the one about the interview in Ford’s theater that begins, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln…,” right?

Barnestormer on August 2, 2012 at 3:30 PM

…but try to mainatin your sense of humor Melonhead.

ObamatheMessiah on August 2, 2012 at 12:26 PM

What part of your imbecilic post entailed “humor”?

Solaratov on August 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Once again, the the LBGT absolutely MUST have the spotlight on them (as usual).
ME ME ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!!!!! It’s ALL about Meeeeeeee!!!!!

pastselldate on August 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Here’s the thing, though –
Chick-Fil-A seems to have no issue with now being identified at ‘the anti gay marriage company’. To the contrary, they seem to be embracing the label – as they are free to do.
It’s of course likely disheartening for all the customers and employees they’ve had/have that don’t share this non chicken sandwich related opinion – but that seems to give them no pause.
I imagine professional marketers and business minded folks they work with aren’t feeling so celebratory today. Likely concerned a day of record sales might not make up for embracing a label that will stick and have greater and long term implications.
But maybe Rick Warren will send his flock out for nuggets every day.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM

From what I’ve seen from my friends and their friends posting on FB from all over the country, the 78% of Americans and all that joined thm are very pleased concerning yesterday.

You mad, bro?

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Since we’re talking about protesting religious intolerance, Friday noon services would be an opportune time for our LGBTQWERTY friends to stage mass kissing sessions at the local mosque to protest the fact that current Islamic Shariah law calls for their–what was it? Oh, that’s right. Their death.

But that never seems to happen. Queer, isn’t it?

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

But I’m sure you’re aware of entitlement programs, and how difficult they are to rescind once they’re out there. All of the legal benefits under “marriage” would have to go, and as those benefits pretty much amount to an entitlement, they wouldn’t be stricken quietly, for sure.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

That’s why the government should just refer to both straight and gay unions and “civil unions”. Solves everything.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

No need to respond to Verb – he doesn’t beleive what he wrote.

Jetboy makes an interesting argument, and one that actually is incorrect as federally sexual orienatation is not a protected client – therefore since gays are not told they cannot marry a person of the opposite sex, never mind the fact they have no desire to do that, they are not being disadvantaged. The equal protection clause which is the basis for lawsuits on gay marriage is getting to the point that it tries to overturn legislative action for almost anything – what you should ask your congress critter is to begin looking at refusing to accept the ruling of the SC – constitutionally, the SC is not the only arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. There is a process for doing so and it needs to be used, or else the 14th amendment needs amending itself.

But more importantly – jetboy references the benefits bestowed by the govt and the desire for gays to access the benefits given to married couples – benefits given to married couples because they typically are responsible for raising the next generation of Americans whereas gays who are married do no such thing – they provide no benefit to the state at all. Of course this also suggests that maybe we need to roll back the state as a provider of benefits – no benefits, no need for gay marriage at all.

Zomcon JEM on August 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I have to wonder about all the other fast-food chains; some of them have to be thinking about taking a traditional marriage stand if that’s where the big money is. Support for gay marriage might get you praise from the proggies but it doesn’t pay the bills.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

The same website posted the info about the 200% increased in business at Chick-fil-A posted these tweets from other fast food companies looking for “controversy”.

At this rate, how quickly before Burger King starts making “controversial” statements?

Breaking: After failed effort to mimic Chic-fil-A’s profits from political controversy, KFC abandons support for Kellogg-Briand Treaty.

Breaking: CEO of Ruby Tuesday’s says he was glad Firefly was cancelled and that Joss Whedon ruined Avengers.

CEO of Cracker Barrel: Tim Burton Batman “much” better than Nolan version. But Adam West was the best one of them all.

In bold move, president of Popeye’s Chicken announces he always hated Princess Di, puppies.

Hera on August 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Marriage is a civil…and religious as well…institution that includes a whole plethora of government-sponsored benefits. By excluding same-sex couples, there’s no access to those civil benefits.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

.
And us “evil Evangelicals” think that the laws of the land should reflect the Bible.
And I will further state that this was the Founding Fathers intent.

They totally wanted Christianity to influence and guide Government, and NOT the other way around.

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM

But that never seems to happen. Queer, isn’t it?

spiritof61
on August 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

.
Agreed. We need to organize a “Gay Pride” protest in Dearborn, MI.

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I have to wonder about all the other fast-food chains; some of them have to be thinking about taking a traditional marriage stand if that’s where the big money is. Support for gay marriage might get you praise from the proggies but it doesn’t pay the bills.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

CFA is a privately owned chain.

pastselldate on August 2, 2012 at 3:43 PM

It’s not about gay rights. It’s about the 1st Amendment. When that is lost, all other will be too.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

This x 1000, and we have to keep shouting it 24/7 until it gets through even the thickest of thick heads!

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Yep. Schad always sees clearly through the fog.

SparkPlug on August 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

If will be interesting to see what goes on at the two Chick-fil-As down here in DeSoto County, MS tomorrow.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

MS? Probably a brother-sister kiss-in.

The Rogue Tomato on August 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 12:45 PM

You just don’t get it, do you?

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

And s/he/it never will.
But s/he/it will use it to provoke arguments whenever possible.
And attempt threadjacking.

Solaratov on August 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

No worries…Same-sex marriage on it’s own isn’t a part of the constitution…nor is any marriage…gay or straight. The constitutional conflict in denying same-sex marriage is found in the 14th amendment with the equal protection clause.

Marriage is a civil…and religious as well…institution that includes a whole plethora of government-sponsored benefits. By excluding same-sex couples, there’s no access to those civil benefits.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Sorry, but you are just wrong.

Marriage is already defined legally, and everyone has exactly the same access to it. Everyone has the right to marry one member of the opposite sex. No one has the right to marry a member of the same sex, or to marry more than one person. There is no equal protection issue.

As for the civil benefits, virtually all can be addressed by proper legal arrangements including civil unions, health care power of attorneys, designating heirs in wills, etc.

It is clear from the rejection of civil unions by so many gay activists that their goal isn’t effective legal equivalence. They want the marriage status as a badge of legitimacy. The legitimacy they seek is not to be gained by strong-arming and demonizing those who disagree, instead it hardens hearts.

If the LGBT community would actually come out and take on the Islamists’ REAL bigotry, surely some would pay a price. But they would gain more respect than they will ever gain by staging “Kiss-ins” in family restaurants.

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The Rogue Tomato on August 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

In Shep’s case, it was brother/brother.

We go huntin’ with our Sisters.

We meet our brides in church.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I have no opinion on gay marriage.

If elected officials can get away with using their power and influence to punish private citizens for expressing opinions, we will no longer be a free country.

Had lunch at Chik-Fil-A in the Chicago suburbs today. Lines out the door. Saw a few Gadsden flag tees and talked to some friendly Texas expats. Food wasn’t bad.

ElectricPhase on August 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM

So you’re OK with mayors of two major cities trying to keep out a business because of the owner’s stand on an issue?

INC on August 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Completely against it.
As is everyone – hence them looking like fools and instantly backing off and/or spinning.
I am though in favor of Gay Marriage.
You?
Not that that’s what this all really about or anything…

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Genesis 2:22-24
“Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman, ‘ for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

See, in the very beginning it was Adam and Eve. Not Steve and Steve or Ellen and Ellen.

Cherokee on August 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM

And s/he/it never will.

Solaratov on August 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

‘It’, really?
Sheesh.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM

If you truly hate the evil gay-bashing Christian chicken killers (and all their franchisee minions), does that make you a “Chik-Fil-A-ter”?

If so, perhaps this explains why YOU SUCK!

And before you and your smooch buddies PDA away, please have the common courtesy to buy something.

cinnabar on August 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Not that that’s what this all really about or anything…

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

You do miss the point. This is NOT about gay marriage. The topic of your agreement/disagreement is not relevant.

It’s all about the 1st Amendment. Period.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM

From what I’ve seen from my friends and their friends posting on FB from all over the country, the 78% of Americans and all that joined thm are very pleased concerning yesterday.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Sure…those are some convincing stats you’re going by there.
(FB is a very gay rights friendly, pro-SSM company, fyi.)

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Well I plan to go BACK to Chic-Fil-A tomorrow.
And bring my camera.
And post the pictures.

I wonder if the protesters Employers would like me to go to their office and kiss my partner, regardless of their sex?

If you do not like Chic-Fil-A’s politics, oppose them at the ballot box or even contribute to causes that oppose them, like Ben&Jerry’s does. Or maybe even don’t buy their products.

But do not hinder my ability to purchase a legal product and do not hinder the employees ability to earn a living.

Obama needs to choose. Does he support LGBT and “Chicago” values? Or does he support the Black Christian Church values?

barnone on August 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM

And us “evil Evangelicals” think that the laws of the land should reflect the Bible.
And I will further state that this was the Founding Fathers intent.

They totally wanted Christianity to influence and guide Government, and NOT the other way around.

listens2glenn on August 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Dear gawd…are you for real?

People came here to escape from religious persecution. Not to mention, the majority of our forefathers were Deists, not Christians.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I trust photographs and the lines at the two Chick-fil-As I poassed going home for work at 4:30 yesterday over some anonymous atheist psuedo-intellectual Lib.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:57 PM

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I thought you were supposed to be a Chistian.

Here, go study. http://wallbuilders.com./

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 3:58 PM

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM

It is stupid as a product/service provider to express any kind of political or other opinion. As a pure Capitalist, I’d never put a sign into a pizza restaurant window, for ex., which says “Vote Romney, or Vote Obama”.

That w/b defeating and would be enough cause for shareholders to fire the board/CEO over such idiocy.

However, the owners of Chick-Fil-A have a 1st Amendment right to do anything they wish with their business. No one has to like it.

The owners of a leftists business have the same right. Period.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I do hope they put the fruit cups on special for tomorrow.

Buttercup on August 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Now, that’s funny.

And a propos.

Solaratov on August 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Definitely going to Chick-Fil-A tomorrow for “Same Sex Kiss In Day,” or whatever. And here is my plan…

I am going to buy a chicken sandwich for every single protester outside. Then I will hand them out, and say, “Normally I only would have bought one chicken sandwich, but you were all out here and and not eating, so I figured that you just didn’t have any money to spend on tasty chicken. But that’s okay, I got you covered. Great chicken for everybody ON ME! That way, there is no hate at all… I support their business, and I support your cause by proving you a tasty lunch. NO HATE!”

I can feel the love already.

JohnD13 on August 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

leftists = leftist

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM

It’s an entirely valid argument about leaving “marriage” up to religion, and getting the state out of it completely. There are good points made on that idea from both sides.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Honestly, I’m all or nothing on this issue. I’m persuaded by the argument that the government should not be deciding what is and what is not a romantic relationship or what is or what is not a family. I completely agree with those arguments.

That’s why I think it’s ridiculous that a proposed solution is to simply allow the government to continue making these value judgments but only so long as they start approving of homosexual relationships too.

This allows politicians to keep this as a wedge issue for us when we should really be asking ourselves why we let the government have a say in this issue at all. I get that people are upset that Cathy is spending money on this issue, but my response to that, is why do we even let him? Why do we allow the government to have a say on this, thus giving Cathy someone to lobby on the issue?

Why not make the whole thing moot?

Cause let’s be honest here. Gay marriage is likely going to happen in all states eventually, but when/if that day comes, it’ll only be because our society no longer considers homosexuality that taboo. Basically, because we’ve already accepted these relationships into our mainstream. How can we then argue that this is an equal rights issue when we’re still basing it on our social taboos?

To me, we won’t see true equality on this issue until we remove the government from the role of approving or rejecting certain relationships.

And so long as we allow the government to do this, I don’t see how we can harp on citizens for doing the same.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

JohnD13 on August 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I predict that even if you buy a sammich for every protester, it won’t cost you much.

Good luck.

ElectricPhase on August 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I do hope they put the fruit cups on special for tomorrow.

Buttercup on August 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

ROFL!!!!

pastselldate on August 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You do miss the point. This is NOT about gay marriage. The topic of your agreement/disagreement is not relevant.

It’s all about the 1st Amendment. Period.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You can say that over and over again, but that is NOT what this is about or what fueled this controversy. That is not the call/cause Huckabees droves we answering to.
They were there, primarily, to take a stand against gay marriage.
And they were fully able to do so due their secure 1st amendment rights.
This controversy isn’t getting any oxygen from free speech advocates. It lives and thrives in the Evanelical right world and on anti-SSM sites and blogs like National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family, AFA, etc.
Those who participate in the kiss-in will be doing so to stand up for SSM and against what they view as anti-gay bigotry.
There has been virtually zero discussion of free speech or the 1st amendment in this thread…in this debate…or in the long lines outside Chik-Fil-A yesterday.
What do you think they were talking about?
And that they were absolutely free to talk about.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM

But I’m sure you’re aware of entitlement programs, and how difficult they are to rescind once they’re out there. All of the legal benefits under “marriage” would have to go, and as those benefits pretty much amount to an entitlement, they wouldn’t be stricken quietly, for sure.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

And I am sure you are aware that bennies were in the state interest because it was in the state interest to keep a mother and a father and their biological children together. It has to do with the state encouraging the traditional family much the way tax credits are given to people who buy environmentally friendly cars. It is tax breaks to those furthering the state’s interest..

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM

However, the owners of Chick-Fil-A have a 1st Amendment right to do anything they wish with their business. No one has to like it.

The owners of a leftists business have the same right. Period.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Agreed.
NO debate on that.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Heard on the Hill — Roll Call’s Gossip Blog
Who Are You Callin’ ‘Chikin?’

The Senate Republican Steering Committee ate it at a policy luncheon….

The ultimate Yahtzee! moment happened when former Sen.
Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) tweeted thusly: “@RickSantorum: Here at @citizensunited finishing our Chick-fil-A lunch. Ok leftists go crazy.”

INC on August 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Well I plan to go BACK to Chic-Fil-A tomorrow.
And bring my camera.
And post the pictures.

I wonder if the protesters Employers would like me to go to their office and kiss my partner, regardless of their sex?

If you do not like Chic-Fil-A’s politics, oppose them at the ballot box or even contribute to causes that oppose them, like Ben&Jerry’s does. Or maybe even don’t buy their products.

But do not hinder my ability to purchase a legal product and do not hinder the employees ability to earn a living.

Obama needs to choose. Does he support LGBT and “Chicago” values? Or does he support the Black Christian Church values?

barnone on August 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Someone should ask little Bammie if federal employees can be given a couple of hours off to protest. Force him to double down on the stupid.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6