Chick-fil-A Has 'Record-Setting' Sales on Appreciation DayBy AMY BINGHAM | ABC OTUS NewsChick-fil-A posted "record-setting" sales on Wednesday as thousands of people swarmed the chicken chain for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day after the chain's chief made anti-gay comments . . .
“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,” [Dan] Cathy said.
In a separate radio interview, Dan Cathy said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we can try to define what marriage is all about.”
-- i.e. the patent basis for the universal consensus of humanity until only a few years ago when radical activists made up the notion that Adam could "marry" Steve, not Eve, and that Eve may then wish to "marry" Mary (and perhaps after this, Sue may wish to "marry" Fido) --
Mr Huckabee has a telling point on that:“The militant homosexual advocates have launched an all out assault on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A, pushing for a boycott because the Cathy family has contributed to traditional marriage organizations. The attempts to hurt or destroy Chick-fil-A is nothing short of economic bullying. In the name of ‘tolerance,’ there is an effort being mounted to put pressure on people to stop eating at Chick-fil-A. Even worse is the vilification of the company and its employees. The Christian world view of Dan Cathy is being met with intolerance and vicious hate speech,” Huckabee’s announcement said.John Hayward of Human Events, adds:
“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game,” he said.
Cathy isn’t allowed to encourage reverence and support for the traditional family, or even worse, put his money where his mouth is. He’s not allowed to say that he finds moral or practical value in the time-honored definition of marriage, without feeling animosity towards gay people. His ideas and principles are automatic thought crimes, no matter how gently and constructively they might be presented.
That's why it is well worth clipping a critical user comment for the ABC story:
Maybe journalism has changed or they must not be paying enough at ABC. How many students would be able to get the first paragraph past a college professor twenty years ago? How low can ABC fall?Here you go everyone, my 11 yr. old kid is being called to the computer to edit this so called reporters first paragraph. Chick-fil-A posted "record-setting" sales on Wednesday as thousands of people swarmed the chicken chain for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day after the chain's chief made anti-gay comments.Ok, the first thing he said after reading this piece and a few others on the subject is that the first paragraph is usually the most important part of the story and she missed big time. She got the who, what, where, why, when and then she made up the how. What a disgrace to a so called news organization to take make assumptions and take comments of a supporter of traditional marriage is now branded as hate speech anti-gay comments. ABC do you understand that there are important questions that your dwindling customers wants answers to? You are making stuff up to fill your dingbat views. Even an 11 yr. old sees it. How do you run a business? As someone that writes a few checks. I say about on par with my six year old. They are gaining confidence everyday so thanks ABC.
The narrow-minded, homophobic folks who decided to make a political statement by chowing down on reprocessed chicken parts are no different than those who vehemently objected to interracial marriage in the previous generation.They too will end up on the wrong side of history.The former highlights a failure of journalism, the latter is caught up in the talking points and loaded words of the moment. Evidently, it has not struck this commenter that there is a world of difference between laws that pretended that a man and a woman of diverse ethnicities do not complement one another as man and woman, and suggesting that there is no distinction between man + woman and the various alternatives that are now being touted as "equal" to it. In turn, that is highly revealing on the nihilistic breakdown of rationality and moral discernment leading to might and manipulation make 'right' amorality imposed by the rise of radical relativism in our day and underlying evolutionary materialist scientism under the guise of avant garde knowledge and flying the false colours of both science and civil rights.
Of this, Plato as long ago as 360 BC, warned in The Laws, Bk X:
In short, something has gone very wrong with news, and with a lot of other centres of influence and leadership in our civilisation.[[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
If this sort of thing continues, the whole news profession needs to be red lined as in serious need of reformation before we can ever trust news again.
Frankly, limited or even no news is better than propagandistic smears, outright lies and subtle or blatant agendas fed to us in the name of being soberly presented who- what- where- when- why- how facts we need to know about.
(And, BTW, the first paragraph got what, why and how wrong, in service to an obvious agenda. Mr Cathy was plainly not expressing hatred for homosexuals but seeking to stand for marriage as it has historically been understood, expressing his concern for the implications of assuming that we can remake so foundational an institution as we will regardless of what is naturally evident, being rooted in the underlying Creation order of Man and Woman together as the basic unit of reproduction and nurture of the next generation. That is a serious and principled view that needs to be soberly discussed, not smeared and demonised automatically as hate. Nor is it anything but prejudiced projection to assume that the tens or hundreds of thousands who came out in support of a restaurant chain that had been targetted by homosexualist radicals and their fellow travellers could automatically be written off as being motivated by the equivalent of racial prejudice and hate. That is shameful and indefensible. Indeed, it seems to be a manifestation of hostility, broad-brush adverse stereotyping and prejudice.)