-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Michelle Malkin has the story. Homosexual activists have ginned up a fake controversy targeting Chick-Fil-A just because one of the chicken outlets was kind enough to donate sandwiches and brownies to a “marriage seminar” run by a group that happens to oppose same-sex marriage. How utterly pathetic of the activists. How utterly pointless. How utterly unhinged. The homosexual groups’ tactics are Leninist. Dangerous too. Or, at least would be if they weren’t so pathetic. One could almost remark that if they really are so offended by the donation of brownies, their own showy hypersensitivity plays right into the stereotypes they condemn as being unfair. Well, if they don’t want the stereotypes, don’t take actions that fit the stereotypes. They come off as whiny babies.
As far as I’m concerned, a private life is a private life as long as it doesn’t harmfully coerce somebody else. A friend who “comes out” is still a friend. The friend will answer to his own conscience and to God. So too will a problem drinker. So too will a serial liar. So too will a saint. So too will all of us, for whatever choices, good or bad, we make in life. Our call as friends is to continue offering friendship and support. Our sexuality does not define everything we are. Our fraternal friendship — our agape “love for fellow man” — remains a calling from the Almighty and a human imperative as well.
But if donating brownies to a group promoting faithfulness within traditional marriage is somehow anti-gay bigotry, then the word “bigotry” has lost all meaning — and please let me find the time to bake some more brownies to help with the donations. The protesters can run home to their mommies — as should all protesters, of whatever ilk, who have nothing real to protest against, but who merely give histrionic expression to their own illogically hurt feelings.
View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/02/these-homosexuals-are-chickenx
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- A President Loses His Power
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Whitney| 2.2.11 @ 10:37AM
Quin, I truly appreciate the sentiment you express here but I don't like the blogpost title. Just my two cents.
Quin| 2.2.11 @ 11:16AM
The "xxxx" is meant to let somebody fill in their own blanks. Chickens. Chicken-hearts. Chicken-livers. Whatever. There are so many variations of "chicken-xxx" that I didn't want to rule any out.
David W| 2.2.11 @ 10:40AM
As soon as the ice melts in the Fort Worth area I'll be heading to my local Chick Fil A to buy lunch - probably for a whole week. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been to a Chick Fil A restaturant. However, if the Homosexual Activists want to make a point then I'll make a point on my own.
I hope that those who also disagree with the lifestyle choice (but do not hate as I do not - okay, I'm not wild about Barney and ordained clergy who apparently endorse it) then show your support for them by buying a sandwich and some waffle fries (I am not a Chick-Fil-A employee and no one in my family works there - though I have a niece who works at a potential competitor).
David C| 2.4.11 @ 2:55AM
Interesting, David, that you gave your motivation for supporting the chain as disagreement with a lifestyle choice.
Might not people who agree with the traditional meaning of marriage, as well as those who don't like bullying, support Chick-Fil-A without needing to disaprove of anyone's lifestyle choices?
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.11 @ 10:47AM
Quin,
Well spoken.
Derek Leaberry| 2.2.11 @ 10:56AM
The differences on this issue are irreconcilable. Social liberals, whether on the left or right, approve of homosexuality as a slightly different way, and perhaps a better way, to express one's sexuality. To disapprove homosexuality is not only intolerant, it is evil. For social conservatives, whether religious or not, homosexuality is dishonorable, degenerate and filthy and acts as a cancer in every society that indulges those who practice it. Furthermore, the Bible condemns it.
For those "conservatives", most of whom are young and divorced from Western Civilization and Christendom and deeply immersed in the vulgar popular culture that pollutes the country and who have been propagandized by the Deweyite-Gramsci public schools, who support the homosexual agenda, they will have to figure out what they are really trying to "conserve." If their "conservatism" is just some sort of fetish with Adam Smith or Milton Friedman or the Austrian School of Economics or worship of Free Markets, then they aren't really any sort of conservative at all. Metrosexual "conservatives" are going to have to decide whose side they are on- those who are contemptuous of Christian moral values or those who are contemptuous of the decadent world of today. That is the war we are in.
As for Chick fil-a, liberals don't eat there so the protest is a moot point. Chick fil-a loses more money on a given Sunday for not opening up than they would lose from sort of boycott centered in Dupont Circle, Greenwich Village or Castro Street.
David| 2.3.11 @ 1:25PM
If you want war, you'll get war, and believe me, it's one you and your fellow trolls will lose. By the way, you seem to know an awful lot about gay neighborhoods. An awful lot.
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:26PM
Don't be so sure you'll win that 'war'.
David C| 2.4.11 @ 3:00AM
Perhaps, Derek, some people simply want to conserve (or preserve) the American Revolution. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with disliking homosexuality.
The choice you offer is a false one: One can oppose the decadence of today and still disagree with Christian ethics. Contrary to the assumptions of conservative Christians, the Christian religion is not the center of the moral universe.
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:27PM
Morality is the center of the moral universe, and homosexual sex is not moral.
Tom P.| 2.2.11 @ 11:02AM
I'm glad your crowd of xtians is figuring out that if they donate to anti-gay causes they will lose money.
Times they are a changin'.
Ted| 2.2.11 @ 11:35AM
You've proved Mr. Hillyer's point. Perfectly. On the plus side, I doubt Chick-Fil-A will lose money on this. Most of the people who would "protest" don't eat there anyhow, I'd be willing to wager.
tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 12:04PM
Tom, it's interesting that the gay lobby insists on tolerance yet refuses to reciprocate. I guess the whole wacky concept of freedom and the right to do what you please is lost on people such as yourself.
As for this particular episode, I guarantee that Chick-Fil-A will gain more customers, and here's why. We're not afraid to tell the gay lobby to go F*** themselves. It's not even an issue anymore. When you protest against a company that supports traditional values, all you're really doing is giving them free publicity. Note how many people on this site are now committed to patronizing Chick-Fil-A. Count me among them. If you go to any other conservative sites running this story, you will find the comments section filled with people ready to include Chick-Fil-A as part of their regular rotation of places to eat. So well done. I thank you and I'm sure Chick-Fil-A is most grateful.
jo blo| 2.2.11 @ 12:38PM
I think someone said once
'the more things change, the more they stay the same.'
people are creeped out by 'gays'. Always have been. Always will be. The current generation has merely been cowed into not saying anything or has been deceived into buying an image of what 'gays' really are. As the 'gay' lobby keeps this sort of crap up, the first group will get sick of being cowed and come out with what they think; the second will see 'gays' for what they really are, and that's it.
Don't forget, this 'lifestyle' was classed as a behavioral disorder and changed only because of political pressure, not scientific discovery. The reasons for such classification are on full display with this episode.
jer| 2.2.11 @ 4:53PM
clearly tha author of this gay-bashing rant doesn't understand life from a culturally gay perspective.
Patty| 2.3.11 @ 12:16AM
Nor does he want to.
David| 2.3.11 @ 1:20PM
Dear Moron, time to go back into your Ozzie and Harriet closet. Maybe you're "creeped out" by gays, but most people aren't. just your people, a dying breed. Your little just-us club will soon be over.
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:28PM
I'm creeped out by anal sex.
Wayne | 2.2.11 @ 12:57PM
Well Tom P. good luck with shariah law.
NotALibertarian| 2.2.11 @ 11:35AM
You may think this behavior is over the top, Mr. Hillyer, but your own indifference to the gay lobby ensures that these tantrums will become the order of the day.
Homosexuals persecute Christians all the time. But the stories of bakeries who are told they are legally obligated to make same-sex wedding cakes, wedding photographers who are told they must photograph gay weddings, and Catholic adoption agencies put out of business rarely see the light of day.
We don't have time to talk about these stories, because we have to make room for all of the video footage of impressionable teenage students cheering a lesbian couple at a school dance.
Unfortunately, many non-religious conservatives have their heads in the sand when it comes to the actual disaster that gay rights will spawn: "We're in the midst of an ECONOMIC CRISIS, donchyaknow. We don't have time to notice the legal prison gay activists are building for religious people."
Actually, it reminds me of this: "A meeting of EU foreign ministers failed to agree on a condemnation of sectarian attacks over the Christmas period that targeted Christians in Egypt and Iraq. Talks ended angrily when Italy accused Lady Ashton, the EU’s foreign minister, of “excessive” political correctness because she refused to name any specific religious group as a victim of attacks."
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....stuttaford
Eric Dondero | 2.2.11 @ 12:13PM
It's a diversion. Gays are embarrassed by fellow "victim group" Muslims assasinating gay leaders in Uganda, calling for the death penalty for anyone caught of a homosexual act in Rwanda, and Kenya, and hanging gays in town squares in Iran.
They're deafly silent on such real atrocities. They're hoping nobody will notice. So, they create fake controversies in the U.S. to divert attention.
David| 2.3.11 @ 12:56PM
Gee, Eric, I've had fellow libertarians tell me you're an idiot, but after reading your comments, I know it for a fact. Gays don't protest Muslim anti-gay hate or acts of violence? Most of the violence in Africa you refer to was instigated by your fellow rightwing homophobes right here in the USA, so there's plenty of blame to go around.
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:30PM
Got any evidence to back up your stupid accusations, moron? You're going to love Sharia Law--until they cut off your head.
Wayne | 2.2.11 @ 12:52PM
Here is my take:
1. It is not sex guys.
2. It is a choice.
3. If you redefine marriage for gays, then everyone has the right to redefine it to suit there own needs.
a. Does not require sex.
b. Does not require only 2 people.
c. Does not require incest laws.
Steve in Pittsburgh| 2.2.11 @ 1:18PM
I found out about this over at The Weekly Standard. They beat you to it.
Also, TWS' writer posted a link to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsJHqstPuNo
Then, to confirm Tim Hawkins' beliefs, there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Oldefarte| 2.2.11 @ 1:45PM
I mostly agree with Quin's [as usual] thoughtful analysis of this situation; BUT I have additionaly ideas as usual. First, everyone should view the video from Michelle Malkin.com recently included in its compilation of historically/radically liberal proclamations/events, concerning homosexuals chasing Christians and their limited number of police protectors out of the Castro District in SF. Second, we were all created with FREE WILL which allows us to supervise/guide our own personal earthly lives, with the understanding that our judgement day at death will determine our post earthly direction. Third, homosexuals, in this particular case and all others, do NOT want to simply avoid discrimination/bias, but instead wish to ELEVATE themselves and their immoral lifestyle onto a societal pedestal of professed superiority!!!!!!!!!!!
David C| 2.4.11 @ 3:16AM
"homosexuals ... do NOT want to simply avoid discrimination/bias, but instead wish to ELEVATE themselves ... onto a societal pedestal"
Considerable truth in this, Oldefarte, it must be admitted. Of course, the greatest reason for this obsession amongst homosexuals for that societal pedastal is the constant assertion by the likes of you that homosexuals are living an "immoral lifestyle" simply for making love to other homosexuals.
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:31PM
Anal sex creeps out a lot of people.
Scott| 2.2.11 @ 2:09PM
Oh boo hoo. Those mean gays noticed that Chick-Fil-A gave a donation to an anti-gay group.
Now they're going to not spend their money at Chick-Fil-A.
How dare they use their free speech rights! So I guess it's ok with Don Wildmon's AFA boycotts gay friendly business but heaven forbid somebody else does it.
Patty| 2.3.11 @ 12:24AM
You've got it backwards; Conservatives don't try to make you Marxists shut up. You're projecting again.
David| 2.3.11 @ 12:51PM
Religious nuts are calling for boycotts all time. What rock do you live under?
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:34PM
You Marxist nutjobs always scream 'racist' and 'homophobe' to shut others up. You're just pissed off because it doesn't work as well as it used to. Get used to it, moron.
We both know the slimy rock YOU live under.
Oldefarte| 2.3.11 @ 10:01AM
No....YOU simply need to SHUT UP AND GO BACK INTO YOUR CLOSET!!!!!
Conservative Bob| 2.2.11 @ 4:00PM
How does less than 3% of the population warrant so much attention? Their actions do tend to confirm the stereo type.
Shrill, tedious, obnoxious, this small fraction of our society says we must notice them, we must listen to them, and above all we must agree with them or we are mortally flawed, intolerant bigots.
It is as if this same fraction of the population had the emotional maturity of a 2 year old.
Believe what you want to believe, choose that which you wish to choose and have the common decency to allow the rest of us the same.
In the end we will all answer for our choices good or bad and suffer the consequences.
Quin| 2.2.11 @ 4:52PM
I want to make absolutely clear that I am neither making, nor do I endorse, any sweeping statements about homosexuals in general. That is no more fair than it is to make such statements about blacks, or Irish, or WASPS, or left-handers. I am referring instead only to the over-the-top activists who are creating a "reason" for protest out of thin air.
Conservative Bob| 2.2.11 @ 5:26PM
I would have done better to make the clarification myself... I am referring the majority of my comments to the activists that seem to incessantly be screaming their victimhood and their demands and should have so stated in my comments. My reference to the ‘less than 3%’ is the best guess estimate of the total population and amazement at the disproportionate attention demanded and given.
David| 2.3.11 @ 12:49PM
Bob, Let's make a deal. You agree to give us equal legal righs, and we'll stop the screaming. How's that? But of course, that won't happen because so many folks like you don't care about such rights, only forcing your religious views on everyone else.
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:35PM
You already have equal rights, you want SUPRA rights.
Derek Leaberry| 2.3.11 @ 8:54AM
That's your problem, Quin. Queers are dishonorable. Even the Bible says so. Social liberals such as yourself are not conservative.
Oldefarte| 2.3.11 @ 10:05AM
You need to read religious theology and philosophy, and you will learn that humans were/are created with the concept of FREE WILL, and that ONLY GOD has the ultimate power to JUDGE [since God created them to begin with]!!!!
Derek Leaberry| 2.3.11 @ 11:14AM
Read the relevant passages of Leviticus.
David| 2.3.11 @ 12:45PM
"Even the bible says so." You mean the cherry-picked lines written by old men 2000 years ago, and then translated and re-translated? That bible? Come on, you just hate people no like you. And we hate you back.
David C| 2.4.11 @ 3:19AM
The United States was not founded on Leviticus.
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:36PM
The U.S. was founded on morality, and anal sex is NOT moral.
David C| 2.4.11 @ 3:18AM
This is the same Oldefarte who wrote, "homosexuals, in this particular case and all others, do NOT want to simply avoid discrimination/bias, but instead wish to ELEVATE themselves and their immoral lifestyle"?
Oldefarte| 2.4.11 @ 12:15PM
Yes, I wrote BOTH....why are they CONTRARY? Homosexuals [and everyone] was created with FREE WILL and can choose to live their lives anyway they choose to [and will be DAMNED TO HELL by the Almighty for their immorality at death]; AND they [and their supporters] want an elevated status in life beyond non-discrimination [instead of staying inside their closet and keeping their sexuality private and personal, as they should]!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeremy | 2.2.11 @ 7:54PM
Like much coverage of this incident, this article is woefully under researched.
The two major issues involved have nothing to do with the company's announced sponsorship of the 'Art if Marriage" seminars. The biggest issues are (a) a national "protect marriage" seminar that the company seminar holds at its WinShpae Retreat Center, at which national anti-gay marriage figures like Maggie Gallagher, Jennifer Roback Morse, Jim Daly, and others speak and strategize on related topics. The other is (b) the revelation that this very same WinShape Retreat Center (which Chick supports to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) has an explicit ban on gay and lesbian couples. You can read about those here (with links back to other Chick coverage): http://www.goodasyou.org/good_.....-last.html
Also, throughout this whole thing, the vast majority of us who've covered the matter have said, point blank, that the company has EVERY RIGHT to sponsors whatever they want, and that consumers have every right to patronize whatever establishments they choose. In fact, I (the person at the forefront of all this) have admitted that this advocacy revelation will surely *increase* support within large portions of the company's base. That is fine. The interest here was to get out the information and let the market decide.
What's weird is this idea that by putting out accurate, fully documented information (See it all here:http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/chickfila-controversy/), those who have reported on this matter are somehow mean or radical or out-of-line or whatever. If Chick-fil-A execs have no problem with the outreach work they has been doing, then they should have no problem with us noting it. Just as pro-equality companies publicly stand by and promote their own policies supportive of the LGBT community, Chick-Fil-A should have no issue standing by their own choices as a privately-held American company.
So please, regardless of where you stand, don't be so quick to shoot the messenger. And if nothing else, at least make sure you have the whole message before calling someone a "bully" or suggesting they should be "waterboarded."
David| 2.3.11 @ 12:42PM
So Quin, it wasn't just a group about marriage counseling. Your kneejerk and uninformed comments perhaps belie something else?
Jeremy | 2.2.11 @ 7:55PM
Oops, sorry -- that last "waterboarded" comment was in response to another forum, not this one. Sorry.
David| 2.3.11 @ 12:39PM
Most of your points are right, but come on, rightwingers, particularly the whiny ones, are always complaining or boycotting whenever a company or firm appears at all supportive of gay rights. Do you intend to write a similiar column the next time the AFA or FRC gets in a snit?
Patty| 2.4.11 @ 6:38PM
What a joke you whiny Leftist bastards are--you wrote the book on victim politics. Stupid hypocrites.