Chic-Fil-A and The Real Reason People Are Saying “No More Chikin.”

When Dan Cathy, the COO and president of Chic-Fil-A, was asked if he supported the traditional idea of marriage, he stated that he was “Guilty as charged” (you can read the full article and see a video here).

Of course, these comments caused a firestorm on the web. LGBT advocates hammered down harsh criticism of Cathy’s stance, while supporters of traditional values concerning marriage took to the eatery’s defense. Inevitably (and unfortunately), things got nasty. Heat and vitriol fired from both sides.

In my opinion, the media has done an awful job of detailing the situation. I have some issues with the usage of Anti-Gay as a label. In theory, if a group doesn’t agree with homosexuality they are “anti-gay;” however, the word carries the connotation that groups are against gay people. Every group that does not agree with homosexuality does not approach it the same way. Some will say that it’s a sin, but advocate rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. In my opinion, the label carries too many assumptions and it only serves to make an already murky terrain difficult to wade through.

I want to highlight a portion of the issue that I don’t think is getting enough attention. I admit that I’m speaking mostly to the Conservative Christian side of the aisle; the side that is in support of Chic-Fil-A, traditional marriage, and believes that homosexuality is against God’s created order. From my observation, there’s a key component that we’re missing and if we don’t address it, it threatens our already dwindling witness.

The outrage directed at the company isn’t so much about Dan Cathy’s stance, but the about organizations that Chic-Fil-A donates to. These groups have come under scrutiny not because of their religious beliefs, but for the manner in which they discuss them and for the damaging viewpoints that some of them propagate.  Most of the groups that Chic-Fil-A donated to actively campaign against same-sex marriage (and consequently, the governmental perks that and protections that come along with it).  One group in particular, the Family Research Center, is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The organization classifies groups as dangerous based on the presumed facts that they share, facts that have been almost unanimously proven as false by medical organizations and studies across the board. The SPLC notes on their website that “viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.”

These are some quotes that have come from the leadership of the Family Research Center, a recipient of funds from Chic-Fil-A (taken from SPLC):

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
-1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.

“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
— Timothy Dailey, senior research fellow, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” 2002

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

Note: These quotes can be located elsewhere online. Their pamphlets are also online as for your own reading. The other reports and studies of the researchers that the FRC supports can also be easily found, often restating the same assertions about the homosexual community.

That, readers, is the core of the issue.

It’s not Mr. Cathy’s status. While many disagree with it, he is well within his first amendment rights to express his point. And honestly, local governments that are campaigning to block Chic-Fil-A restaurants from opening are dancing dangerously close to violating free speech themselves (read more about that here). Yes, his points may be hurtful to some. But are his words harmful?

Alise Wright comments brilliantly on how failing to differentiate between hate speech and hurtful speech makes the policing of hateful words much more challenging. She writes that labeling an opinion that we disagree with as hateful cheapens the term, causing legitimate hurt to get lost in the midst of “emotionally charged language” (you can read the rest of Wright’s excellent blog here).

However, before we dismiss this entire issue, like too many have done, let’s not just look at what Cathy has said. Let’s look at what Chic-Fil-A has done. Look at some of the words that are pulled from the FRC quotes again.

“Gaining access to children.”


“Adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”

“Disproportionate overlap between the two…[pedophilia] is a homosexual problem.”

Chic-Fil-A gave this organization funds. If you happen to have any loved ones who are gay, they were talking about them. And in particular, the studies focus on gay men. Apparently, gay women aren’t even worth the scrutiny. Hate and an odd form of patriarchy, hand-in-hand.

This is why people are angry. This is why people are pushing back and lashing out. Dan Cathy might not have said these things, but the money you spend on chicken sandwiches goes to finance a group that presents this information as if it were scientific fact.  These harmful stereotypes have been disproven for years, yet are still at the forefront of the argument (see some information about that here).

If you are a Christian that believes everyone should have the same rights, then you should strongly consider not patronizing Chic-Fil-A. The money that you spend there will go to groups that actively work against something that you believe in. Just as one wouldn’t expect a Republican to willingly give money to the Democratic Party, you should spend your money elsewhere.

If you are someone who is appalled by the comments of the FRC, and have serious concerns about the groups that perform “restorative therapy” on people who have same-sex attraction (a practice that a prominent ex-gay ministry now rejects as harmful and unrealistic), then you want to spend your money elsewhere. Again, Chic-Fil-A gives money to a cause that you don’t agree with.

If you still eat there, does that make you hateful? Perhaps not. But as Chic-Fil-A’s decade-long history of finance shows, someone else will be paid to be hateful for you. At the very least, if you are going to take a public stand in a situation such as this, perform the due diligence to research all of the facts. Don’t simply do what seems to be the Christian thing to do, because you may be encouraging something very un-Christian in the process.

Or are we so quick to rush to our default sides of the argument that we don’t stop to see if we trampled someone to get over there?

I strongly urge and humbly plead with believers that hold to a traditional view of marriage and sexuality to be very careful. I’m not writing this to convince someone to drop his or her religious beliefs.  I’m simply highlighting the truth that we are also called to hearken to the voice of the damaged and broken. If we aren’t careful, it is easy to let our beliefs about people’s conduct hinder efforts to bring liberation, justice, and full recognition of humanity to all. When that happens, we allow our theology to implicitly allow tyranny. When we participate in dehumanization, we become less human ourselves.

If someone is claiming that his or her basic human rights, liberty, and dignity are threatened, shouldn’t Christians at least look into it?

Shouldn’t the claim of someone seeking justice override our taste buds?

Shouldn’t we put just as much effort into researching a situation that may be causing harm to others as we put into correct and sound doctrine?

Are we going to let our theological differences become a hindrance for honest justice and an enabler for pain?

I certainly hope not.


7 thoughts on “Chic-Fil-A and The Real Reason People Are Saying “No More Chikin.”

  1. Bravo. As always, very well written. You never cease to amaze me bro!

    To look at it from a different perspective, Chic Fil a has provided jobs for people in my community. Should I stop supporting those people because of these organizations that Chic Fil A chooses to support?

    The statements and beliefs of the FRC are completely asinine. I thank you for doing that research on behalf of all the dummy Christians lol (myself included).

    I honestly believe that its sad that they believe that but it doesn’t effect the fact that my mom will be marrying the love of her life next year and she is a woman. It doesn’t effect my support of my mom and her lifestyle choice. And it also doesn’t effect my belief that homosexuality (like lying, cheating, murder, etc.) is a sin.

    I’m not gonna stop eating at Chic Fil A (even tho I should because that stuff is so bad for you!).

    Thanks for writing this bro.

    1. Great point Firenza! There was actually an article written about that. A boycott would hurt a lot of employees, employees that don’t agree with his stance. I just can’t find it right now. That’s why I’m an advocate of looking at a situation wholeheartedly. I think you’re an example of someone that still holds their beliefs but doesn’t let them get in the way of someone exercising their full citizenship. Thanks for the compliment!

  2. Very well done here! Often in the heat of the moment responses are more knee-jerk responses than well thought out decisions. There is a REASON for this uproar just as there is a reason for the uproar over racism and misogyny.

  3. While I may disagree with some of the statements made by the Family Research Council (homosexual men are more likely to seek young men, not children, though our perverted society too often calls post-pubescents “children”) still, it’s hard to fault anybody for being strongly opposed to homosexuality (I speak here of the sinful acts, not the mindset which predisposes one to such temptations), considering its status in the Bible, which calls it an abomination. It was a capital offense in ancient Israel, and one of the tribes of Israel (Benjamin) was nearly wiped out by the other tribes when the were discovered to have been allowing such practices. I don’t see FRC or Chick-Fil-A advocating the wholesale slaughter of homosexuals, nor are they even promoting hatred towards them, so why all the fuss?

    1. Very late reply, Ethan, and I’m sorry for that. However, the argument was never Dan Cathy’s overall stance. It was that they donated to groups that actively opposed rights for gay people, and groups whose practices where deemed hateful and dangerous. Also, I would recommend Peter Gomes’ book “The Good Book,” and other resources that may help you see why people don’t think that the Bible is speaking of the same thing that you and I think of when we say “homosexuality.” It may not change your mind, but they will at least help you understand why people had a problem. I do think that Chic-Fil-A changed its stance, however.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s