Well, they are in the wrong in this case you say. Okay. Just what did the CEO, Dan Cathay (nobody seems to be able to spell this name correctly I've noticed) say that was so egregious? Most probably don't even know because they probably only listen to idiot pundits and lazy journalists who can't be bothered to do any real work on the matter. So, I will quote the actual statement here: "Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families – some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that ... We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles." So, other than whatever is meant by guilty as charged, there is absolutely nothing controversial here. In fact, it helps speak to something I'll get to later when he says they want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. When using the word we, Cathay is referring to the Cathay family. The business is family owned and operated, except for their franchisees. So, they support the biblical definition of the family unit. Um...last time I checked, so did the overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims, etc. Religious entities are generally going to say they agree with their holy book's viewpoint. So, what was the question that was asked? This is the interesting part. According to the Baptist Press article that everyone is so keen on quoting without doing any homework of their own, the questions was..."some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family". It was to this statement in the article that Cathay said "guilty as charged". Huh...you'd have thought that the question was are you opposed to gay marriage, based on how it is being reported. I pointed this out to several people and they changed their approach. After all, even the ACLU has sided with Chick-fil-a when it comes to their first amendment rights, even in the face of political pressure from several city officials (mayors, alderman, etc.).
So, since there is nothing to condemn in the words of Cathay, some are choosing to follow another lazy media tactic and condemn the organizations that Chick-fil-a supports. This is rather irrelevant in reality. If someone is going to determine whether or not they will support (or rather, spend money at) a particular organization based on where it makes its charitable contributions, well, I'd argue most people wouldn't have anyplace they could spend their money. As an example, many organizations support Planned Parenthood, whereas many Christians believe abortion is nothing short of murder. Of course, if you want to pursue this tactic, by all means, do your research on the company you are considering spending money on, and on every organization it supports. Or, you can be lazy and do nothing, or you can be lazy and stupid and take the word of lazy reporters and stupid politicians. It is your choice and your right. However, to call for a boycott of said company is a different matter entirely. I think I could make a case that boycotts don't succeed. Sure, you might hurt a local business, but you won't hurt the company's bottom line. In fact, I suspect you'd strengthen their bottom line. This is the general result (from experience, not research) that I've seen whenever a group, left or right, calls for a boycott of something. Only if everybody agrees can this be an effective tactic, and that is a rarity indeed.
Now, the Cathay family has the right to give to whomever and whatever organization they choose. In reality, most Christians who give a tithe to their church can be accused of supporting an organization that is opposed to gay marriage, since a large number of Christian churches (the majority, I'd argue) are. So, apparently, if you've ever given your money to an organization that has spoken out against gay marriage, then you yourself are a bigot. At least, that is the unhelpful argument that is being made, it seems. Some liken this to giving money to the KKK or the Nazis. I'll get to Chick-fil-a's charitable donations in a second, but I must ask, does the opposition in this case really want people delving into the groups they support as I suggested above? I bet they don't, but their hypocrisy notwithstanding, I will point out something else important. In order to say that opposition to gay marriage is akin to supporting the KKK, well, then marriage must be a human right...otherwise, that argument has no leg to stand on. Since marriage is NOT a right for heterosexuals or homosexuals, that pretty much settles that. Right, I can't just make a statement and then not back it up. For my reasoning as to why my statement is true, see my post here.
However, I will still address the issue of who Chick-fil-a supports. Well, let's start here. In 2008, Truett Cathay, the patriarch of this family and company, was named the winner of the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership. This "annual award "honors living philanthropists who have shown exemplary leadership through their charitable giving, highlights the power of philanthropy to achieve positive change, and seeks to inspire others to support charities that achieve genuine results,” according to Philanthropy Roundtable, a national charitable giving association". The Chick-fil-a company was honored for donating over 100 million dollars since 1967 to support education and foster care. He has also established the WinShape Foundation, which has built 11 foster homes to support orphan care and seeks to support foster children and to support education through scholarships. The goal of the organization is to "help shape winners". That's it. According to their website, they have the aforementioned scholarship program and foster care as well as camps and marriage retreats designed to help struggling and failing couples save their marriages. Surely nobody is complaining this isn't a laudable goal. So, who are the egregious organizations Chick-fil-a has associated with? A 2011 article accused Chick-fil-a of being anti-gay for supporting Focus on the Family and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Agree or disagree with these organizations, they both are long standing Christian groups that are largely operated by donations. To argue Chick-fil-a is anti-gay for supporting these organizations is to argue all Christians are anti-gay simply because they hold to a certain faith tradition. The group, Equality Matters, that called these organizations anti-gay never gave any evidence to back up their claims regarding these two organizations other than that they support a "biblical definition of marriage" For religious organizations, they ALL support the definition of marriage defined in their respective holy book. This is entirely a religious issue and therefore a first amendment issue. Of course, people claim they are defending themselves against false claims, not attacking Christians. Unfortunately, often, many people have a difficult time telling the two apart. When a false claim is made, you can say, that is untrue because...which would be defending yourself and an entirely appropriate approach. However, when you say instead that an organization or group or individual is bigoted in some way because of their spiritual belief, you are in fact attacking the religion, whether it is in self defense or not. People will often say that opposition to gay marriage is akin to opposition to interracial marriage. Well, Christianity wasn't unique in believing that for a long time, but they are one of the few groups to admit it was an incorrect position and change it. These changes didn't happen because society said it was wrong, they happened because other Christians said it was wrong.
But I digress...back to who Chick-fil-a supports. The Huffington Post recently reported that Chick-fil-a has made donations to anti-gay groups. They cite Equality Matters, the organization I mentioned above, as their source. This organization states on its website that they are "a new media and communications initiative in support of gay equality. Through strategic communications, research, training and media monitoring we strengthen efforts for full LGBT rights and correct anti-gay misinformation. Our goal is to enhance advocacy and activism across all platforms and to leverage our expertise in support of others who are working to make full equality a national imperative." This sounds like a good enough goal. In fact, I've said many times that if they'd drop the use of the word marriage, they'd find that many, if not most, Christians would actually support them in their efforts. It isn't just a matter of simple semantics as many claim, but rather an important distinction of faith and philosophy. Be willing to say that all unions not done in a religious institution are civil unions and not marriages which is a religious institution to many and actually predates nation states, and you'd have many supporters. In fact, I'd be one of those supporters. What the state should do is nothing, but if it is going to give special privileges to people who choose to form a union contract, then it should allow anyone to form a contract as long as all parties are capable of making an adult decision (this eliminates pedophiles and those who'd marry their dog from the equation, but certainly open the door to polygamy). So, do they have anything on Chick-fil-a when it comes to discriminatory practices? No, no evidence of discrimination by the company. What they do have is a report that they've given 2 million dollars in 2010 to anti-gay organizations. Which organizations other than the 2 already listed are we talking about? Here's the list Equality Matters is so upset about along with how much the WinShape Foundation (not Chick-fil-a in reality since one is the family company and the other is the charitable arm of the family, not that any good reporters have actually bothered to make that very important distinction) gave each of these.
- Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
- Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
- National Christian Foundation: $247,500
- New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
- Exodus International: $1,000
- Family Research Council: $1,000
- Georgia Family Council: $2,500
Okay then, what have these organizations done to be labelled as anti-gay? We'll start with the Marriage and Family Foundation. It states a belief in the biblical form of marriage of one man and one woman. Yes, I know this definition has changed over the years, let us not harp on irrelevant past definitions and assume that this is an earnest belief. Therefore, their support of helping save and support marriages between one man and one woman is hateful because it isn't inclusive of gay relationships and because they oppose those relationships? Whatever. You see, this is still a first amendment issue. The organization believes it must strengthen the family bonds of biblical families. This is a faith issue and not a rights one, as I've stated earlier. As a religious organization, they have the right to limit their support to those people who are in their faith tradition.
What has the Fellowship of Christian Athletes done? They have publicly stated that they believe homosexuality is a sin. Okay, one can disagree on that, but that doesn't make that group anti-gay...generally, it makes them...biblical. This is again, a first amendment issue.
The National Christian Foundation is accused of being anti-gay because it gives to other anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Interesting that in two separate articles from Equality Matters, I have yet to read anything actually accusing Focus on the Family of something specific other than that it is anti-gay because it believes in a biblical definition of marriage. Obviously, I could have missed something that the organization considers to be common knowledge.
Next we have the New Mexico Christian Foundation which is apparently anti-gay for no other reason than that it is the New Mexico chapter of the National Christian Foundation.
Then we come to Exodus International. They believe that people can be "made straight" through Christ. At least, that is what they are accused of. In fact, this was what their ministry was about, for a long time. An earnest belief that this is true doesn't necessarily make them anti-gay or hateful. However, I grant that their tactics, in the past, have been based on faulty research and assumptions not in evidence. At any rate, while this organization has made some poor choices and decisions in the past which has understandably earned them a reputation of being anti-gay, recently, they've come out publicly against gay bullying and even against their own former position that gays can be "made straight". At least, I saw the apology in that regard from their President. This repudiation of their own past efforts may not be sincere, I don't know, but they aren't given the benefit of the doubt, it seems. At any rate, they still believe homosexuality to be sinful, so I guess that's enough for Equality Matters.
That brings us to the Family Research Council (FRC) which has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Finally, one that can actually be called anti-gay. Right? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) makes a pretty good case that some of the leaders of this organization have made some pretty bad statements and blatantly stated falsehoods regarding the homosexual community. With that in mind, I'd agree that this organization is questionable. However, the SPLC also stated that the organization's "agenda focused on abortion, traditional marriage, religious liberty, parental choice in education and tax relief for families." All of these are good goals as well. The Cathay family has an entire organization dedicated to helping struggling couples in their marriages and strengthening families and helping orphans. You don't think this thousand dollars could possibly be going toward one of these "other" goals? I return to my earlier example of Planned Parenthood. Last year, the Susan G. Komen Foundation tried to cease funding of Planned Parenthood because of its spending on abortion. They opposed one aspect of Planned Parenthood's mission. So, were they applauded for their stance? No, they were lambasted because of all the "other" good work Planned Parenthood does. In other words, they were told they couldn't stop giving because they'd hurt the "other" missions of the organization. Based on the argument being presented so far against Chick-fil-a, apparently, a multi-mission organization can't possibly do any good in one area and do bad in another...right? So, Susan G. Komen was right and Planned Parenthood was wrong under the argument being made right now. I'm not defending the FRC, I'm just saying that the argument being used makes the left atrociously hypocritical in this case.
Finally, there is the Georgia Family Council. Apparently, they were supporters of proposition 8 and are in support of the New Testament form of marriage as well. Um, proposition 8, no matter how much one would like to claim otherwise, passed, even in California. Not all of the people who voted for it are anti-gay, but rather, many of them believe marriage is an institution of the church (or of religions) and that the state should have no say in it whatsoever. Therefore, they vote for these things out of conscience not political philosophy. I understand voting based on conscience, even though my political philosophy would oppose it. This doesn't make someone intentionally hurtful or hateful. Additionally, it is largely over the word marriage. I'll reiterate. CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU'D ALREADY HAVE IT!
Finally, we come to the issue of whether or not various politicians can prevent the company from opening new stores in their regions. Well, as I stated above, even the ACLU has come out against that idea. They themselves said that if a mayor could prevent Chick-fil-a from opening a new store because it is opposed to gay marriage, then a mayor in another town could do the same in reverse. The ACLU is absolutely right on this. In the end, this isn't about hate, although it disturbs me that so many Christian charities that support biblical forms of marriage are being called hate groups. In the end, this is about people who want Constitutional protection, but are unwilling to provide it to their opposition. The 1st amendment is about one thing really. It is about the right of someone to stand up in the public square and shout at the top of their lungs a position with which you would adamantly disagree. If you believe someone has the right to do that and that you then have the right to stand up after them and espouse the opposite, then you believe in the first amendment. If, like many in opposition to Chick-fil-a, you take offense at the opposition and label them hate mongers and anti-whatever rather than relying on your right to make your case, then you don't believe in the first amendment, no matter how much you pay lip service to it. Religious convictions have always been in opposition to the viewpoint of the world. If you don't like them, don't attend church...but don't tell a person of faith they are haters solely because they espouse a belief. If you do, that doesn't make them haters, but it does make you one. Call them out and call them haters if they blatantly lie or if they discriminate, as the SPLC has caught the Family Research Council doing. They called out Exodus International for some of its statements and that organization seems to be changing its tune, at least publicly.
The final question I want to put forth is this. Who do you hurt if you choose to boycot Chick-fil-a. Not Chick-fil-a. Christians nationwide will rally to this company because it has been such a good example of leadership and Christian values over the years. Last time I checked, the Cathay family had that right. So, there are 1600 stores nationwide with over 61,000 employees. They led the fast food industry with 2.7 million in sales per restaurant in 2010. So, if you don't like Chick-fil-a, don't eat there. You have that right. But if you choose not to eat there because of the family's supposed anti-gay stance, then you choose to not eat there because you disagree with a protected religious viewpoint, which is also your right. If you choose not to eat there because their charitable organization supports anti-gay organizations, then that is also your right. You should at least bother to research these organizations for yourself rather than rely on other entities such as Equality Matters to do your research for you. If you find you dislike those organizations, then by all means, let the Cathay family know why. You might be surprised that they may choose to give elsewhere. Of course, if you find nothing wrong with the groups, then you've done your own research and made a decision. If you do find these groups offensive, then you may choose not to eat there as well, also your right. If you support keeping them out of your neighborhood because of zoning issues or legitimate business related issues, as recently happened in a neighborhood near me, then I support you in that. If you, like the mayors of Chicago and Boston, think you can keep them out of your neighborhood because you disagree with their supposed stance, then I will again refer you to my statement above. I freely admit that I have no intention of looking into the charitable giving of the companies I patronize. If I chose to look at this in order to decide whether or not I would spend my money there...well...I would never buy anything from anyone. After all, I can't stand the Democrats or the Republicans and almost every organization supports one or both of these each year. I don't care for Planned Parenthood's stance on abortion, but I buy from companies that most assuredly support them. I don't always approve of some of the corporate culture and actions of mega corporations like oil companies either, but I have to buy gas or choose to ride a bike everywhere I go. This is not how I plan to live my life. Show me a company that treats people with respect, goes out of its way for its customers, and doesn't discriminate like Chick-fil-a and I'll gladly support them, regardless of what may happen with their profits in the background. The rest of the time, I really just don't want to know.
