I agree that Dan Cathy has a wrong stance but should be allowed in the market place if local authorities and the community agree to have one. I won't spend my money there knowing that the owner is going to spend it on discrimination. I think Dan Cathy is making a horrendous mistake being so vocal about his personal views. Polls show that a growing number of Americans are accepting of gay marriage. Why would a businessman alienate a huge portion of the population and potential customers? I do think Chicago has a right to decide whether to let Chick-fil-A operate or not. It shouldn't be decided by the Mayor alone but by the people in the wards where Chick-fil-A wants to operate. It would be no different than excluding a stip club or a casino in your town because it doesn't reflect the values of your community. If Dan Cathy is going to publicly express his bigoted views then his store is then associated with that bigotry. If the people of Chicago don't want to associate themselves with the views of Dan Cathy they have a right to deny his business access to their neighborhoods.

I agree with the author of this blog. Scott, what you are saying is extremely dangerous. Comparing Chick-fil-A to operating a casino is apples and oranges. Determing whether Chick-fil-A gets to operate a franchise purely based on the political positions of its CEO is actually illegal and unconstitutional. It is general consensus among legal scholars that if Chick-fil-A is denied a business liscense in Chicago, then they'll have an excellent case in the courtroom based on first amendment rights. Business liscenses are denied based on zoning restrictions, traffic flow, congestion, wtc. NOT personal opinions. These are the reasons why strip-clubs and casinos are denied (even though decisions about casinos actually primarily rests with state lawmakers). Chick-fil-A does NOT discriminate against any customers or employees. Instead Chick-fil_a should be allowed to open, and if the local populace decides not to eat there because of the company's position, then more power to them.

Rahm Emanuel made some excellent points, especially in light of Chick-Fil-A's business practices, which you can get a glimpse of in this Forbes article from 2007: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html It's a misleading oversimplification to boil this issue down to, "Individuals can think whatever they want, and government shouldn't interfere with business!" Unfortunately, this Cathy person has been shrewd enough to leave the hateful and discriminatory waters he's slithering around in murky enough that he probably would win a legal skirmish. On the plus side, his big mouth has let current and potential customers know where he and his company stand, and current and potential customers will have to think about exactly where their dollars might end up.

Funny how success sometimes breeds contempt in any form or fashion ???

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if Chicago has any legal grounds to keep Chick-fil-A out of the city. Communities are just using zoning, traffic congestion, and other "problems" as excuses to keep casinos and strip clubs out when they really just don't want them there personally. I agree that customers can decide for themselves and will. If Chicago doesn't want Chick-fil-A then they will find a legal excuse to keep them out.

You can't compare a Chick-fil-A restaurant to a strip club or casino. Aren't American ideals based on having the freedom to think differently and not be persecuted for them? The good Mayor's stance is just as bad as what he's accusing Mr. Cathy of espousing. Let the restaurant open. If you don't want to support the business, then don't. What's the big deal? Last I heard, it's "Mayor" Emanuel...not "Imperial Ruler" Emanuel. This may work in North Korea, but this is America!

The United States used to be a country where you could freely express your opinion on a given subject. If your opinion was in the minority of public opinion or in the majority of public opinon you were always still free to voice it. The repercussions it had were usually based on the community's reaction, either negative or positive. It immediately wasn't judged by a government. It was the people that decided and informed the government of what they wanted. For an elected official to immediately condemn a business based on an opinion of it's operating officer is wrong. If the local people of the community don't want a business in their community because of the beliefs of an operating officer, they reserve that right. Where do we draw the line however, what truly is right or wrong? If a Muslim community doesn't want a Catholic church built in their community, are they now condemned as bigots and people of hate? If a Christian community doesn't want a sex shop in their community, are they condemned as bigots and people of hate? The straight fact of the matter is that this operating officer expressed his opinion of being anti-gay, an opinion he has every right in this free country to express. If the community in Chicago, or wherever else, does not want his restaurant in their community because of that opinion then they also reserve the right to exercise their freedom of expression. However, labeling this man a bigot because of his personal opinions (continued)

and immediately condemning his business as an agent of hate is not what this country once stood for, and should still stand for. When Lauren Hill expressed her opinion that she was disgusted that white people bought her albums was she immediately condemned by the mayor of Chicago as a racist and not allowed to perform in the city? No. When John Rocker expressed his contempt for New York subway travel and made racial comments towards the people on those subways was he banned from playing in the city of New York? No. So why is this different and who is this mayor to immediately react this way? This is supposed to be a free society where you can express your opinions, not a dictatorship where there is only one way to think.

Prejudice is prejudice and discrimination is discrimination. Most cities have a non-discrimination policy. It's not shades of gray, it's millions of dollars spent to hate a sizable segment of our population…which they collect from the money YOU spend at THEIR restaurants regardless of YOUR beliefs. In my opinion, it's really reaffirming to see city officials take a stand and say, "We don't want that to happen here."

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but can someone explain to me why it is "hate" to not agree with homosexuality? If you're not harassing someone, if you're not physically hurting someone, why are you not allowed to disagree with a given subject? What happens when 10 years from now, as in Amsterdam, when people want to start marrying their pets? Is everyone going to be a bigot and a person of hate because they don't agree with it?

I understand what you write. Freedom of speech is good, Cathy has that right. I support anyone's right of free speech, even those who say things I don't agree with.
If Cathy donated money to a hate group like the KKK and bragged about it, what would you write? Is his organization donating money to groups that have been classified as hate groups? Do you know?

Several points: Mr. Cathy was expressing his personal opinions to a Baptist publication, so who was so upset by his views that they dug up an article/interview for a church publication to use against him? And, what hidden agenda do they have? There must be some reason to attempt to ruin a business. Next, even if we ignore the illegality of what they are doing, why are the aldermen and mayors taking out their disagreement with the business owner's views on the franchisee? Also, Chick-Fil-A ended their agreement with Henson's Muppets prior to Henson announcing that their toys would no longer be used at Chick-Fil-A. Last, but not least, why is it all right for Louis Farrakhan, with his anti-Semitic views, to march in Chicago to stop gun violence, but not for a franchisee to open a restaurant that will serve anyone, hire anyone, etc.? What has happened to our country - we should all start thinking about the fact that the government is intruding into every facet of our lives and this story illustrates it perfectly!

I refuse to do business with anybody who discriminates against the rights of anyone by advertising that you hate their lifestyle. I disagree with their religious practices and now their stance against marriage rights has solidified my decision. If the people who elected the Alderman don't agree with him, they can vote him out. He spoke out for a position that he believes his constituents support. If he's your Alderman, and this angers you, vote against him. If you believe in discriminating against people, eat all of their crappy chicken you want, and vote for him. There, was that so hard?

I would like Rahm to give a statement saying exactly what Chicago represents so we know what we are allowed to believe. He is so far over the line on this one. What ever happened to I don't agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it???? Cathy was asked a question and answered that question. The media is the one that took off with this and they may be surprised where it leads. If Henson wants to pull his Muppet toys that is his right. If you don't want to eat at Chik-fil-a that is your right. To ban them from a city because the owners are Bible believing Christians? They never said they wouldn't serve someone or made anyone feel uncomfortable in their establishments. You are free to do what you want or believe what you want which is the bases of our freedoms. My family will be eating at Chik-fil-a next Wednesday and I would do this if I was gay or atheist because I stand up for their rights.

Thanks for all your comments! Update: Emanuel today has backed away from his comments, echoing Menino in Boston. He still objects to the restaurant opening in Chicago, but defers action to the alderman of that district. Also, the ACLU has come out in support of Chick-Fil-A for exactly the same reasons I put forth.

I think everyone is missing the bigger point of all of this: Chik-Fil-A isn't very good! It's been mythologized as this legendary chicken place by people who visited the south in their younger days in the same way that White Castle has been mythologized by late night drunks.
Here is an idea, why not visit a local place to get your chicken on a bun fix? Chunky Chicken. Chicken N Spice.

Also, technicaily, Mr. Cathy can say what he wants because Chik-Fil-A is not a publicly traded company. He never says these things if he has share holders to answer to.

I agree with those who say it's wrong to discriminate against the LGBT community, though. If he had come out and said he was anti-black people at his store, hell would quite literally have broken loose. Religious based discriminatory practices have no place in today's society.

Lea Anne, I think you said what I have been struggling to put into words. So many people only show "tolerance" when it favors or mirrors their own beliefs, yet when tested we see how very INTOLERANT some people can be when it makes them uncomfortable.

I, like the author of this article, am a straight, conservative, Christian - and supportive of gay people having the same rights as straight people.

I also LOVE ChickFilA. I love their food. I love that the people that work there are the kindest, happiest group of food workers I have ever encountered. I also love most things about the Christian values they generally try to follow. It's refreshing, usually. And you absolutely have the right to not go there, and organize boycotts.

I don't agree with what Mr. Cathy said. (He also doesn't agree with divorce, note he specifically stated that he and his executives are married to their FIRST wives. I'm divorced, and it doesn't offend me that other people think divorce is wrong). But I DO think he absolutely has the right to say it. And corporations have the right to fund whatever groups they want. I actually wish more companies were more transparent with what organizations they support. I actually admire the balls on this guy.

However, politicians shouldn't have the supreme power to block businesses if the brass of that business doesn't agree with what that particular politician thinks.

Please keep in mind, too, that each restaurant is an independently owned franchise. For example, I believe the current city of Chicago location actually donates some of the franchise profits to LGBT causes.

Are any of you aware that a Chik-fil-a is scheduled to open in Bolingbrook this fall? I agree with Holly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It is our right to be able to take a stand for or against just about anything. If Cathy doesn't like Gays, that is his right. If you don't want to eat at his restaurants because of his stand on Gays, that is your right too. What is wrong is either of you trying to foist your opinions on others. Let them decide for themselves. Most Chik-fil-as are individually owned. Yes, Cathy does get a profit but that individual franchise owner has invested a lot in that place.So, you aren't only hurting Cathy but that franchise owner and all of his/her employees too. Think about that, would you?

Are they giving away any food to the first 100 people in line at the grand opening? FREE FOOD TRUMPS ANY PERSONAL BELIEFS!

Tolerance is the allowing of people's opinions that differ from one's own. Nobody is saying that religion needs to go away.. Everyone is allowed to have their religious beliefs. To be pro abortion doesn't necessarily mean that you are intolerant of pro-lifers. You can respect the opinion of those who you don't agree with.

You are allowed to disagree with someone's sexual orientation based on your faith, but you have to remember that many, many people respect the rights of people with alternative lifestyles.

The goal for the lot of us who write here is to create an open forum for conversation both on the pro and con side. Daniel, by referring to someone else as an idiot for having a belief that doesn't agree with you is intolerant. It's also against commenting rules to be offensive to another member of the site.

So when Rahm Emanuel was Chief of Staff for President Obama, at which time the President, similar to the Chick-fil-A's president Dan Cathy, openly supported the traditional definition of marriage, Emanuel expressed no similar dismay or concerns with the President's position to those he now expresses. Hmmmm, how very covenant! I guess Chick-fil-A's position on the matter must be of great import in Rahm's eyes than was President Obama's.

Government should not be involved in business of view point discrimination. PERIOD. However, we as citizens of this great nation, have the right to decide whether to patronize a business or organization for whatever reasons we desire. On that basis, I will be trekking over to my Chick-fil-A in Downers Grove for lunch on Aug 1 to show my support for their continued endorsement Christian principles. Man can try to redefine marriage however they desire, but that will never change the indelible parameters that God has ordained. So good luck with that,…yeah ultimately it did not work out so well for those involved back in Noah’s day either. Some folks just never learn.

I see that people have strong opinions on both sides, but can anyone show me how Chick-Fil-A is exercising hatred? Dan Cathy doesn't control what the Bible says, but to be a biblically consistent Christian, he is conscience bound to support the traditional view of marriage. But still... is that actually hurting anyone? If all discrimination is hatred, then the Pepsi/Coke challenge is evil. And so is picking a favorite baseball team or rooting for your country in the Olympic games. So, someone please show me how eating sandwiches at Chick-Fil-A is cruel to people with a same-gender preference.

Why are churches allowed to not pay taxes? We should balance the budget by taxing all religions and churches. If religion believes that it can dictate how people can live, they should have to pay for the privilege. Why are we letting this mythology passed down from a bunch of middle-eastern sheep herders control anything in modern society? Those who hide behind religion are cowards who are incapable of accepting the realities of life.

The answer is simple. If Cathy's remarks offend you don't support his business. If you don't care or support his remarks, then eat there. You vote with your dollars. If the store succeeds, then you know Cathy's remarks reflect those of the local community. If the store fails and has to close it's doors, then that will tell you about the beliefs of the local community.

Personally I think people need to chill out and stop bringing politics into everything. Who cares? Live YOUR life the way YOU want to. Seriously, should we get the political views of every store/business owner before we shop there?? I could care less what the owner of Chick-fil-A believes in. If I wanted a chicken sandwich and I liked the restaurant I am going to go get one. So many people are SO offended when a group of people don't believe in the things they do. That's life. There is NO law in this country that stated all Americans must support gay marriage. There isn't. If your opinion is that it's wrong then that is OK. Just because someone else thinks it is doesn't mean you have to change your views. I thought this was a free country? I don't get into politics too much and thank goodness I don't. It creates monsters.

To clear it up-- LGBT activists are not boycotting Chick-Fil-A because they are against same-sex marriage. It's because they donate money to the organizations that compare us to pedophiles and zoophiles, saying we will molest children, telling us to repent or die, telling us that we should not get the same 1,000+ rights that "normal" couples get, and telling us that we are second class citizens. That's why it matters what chick-fil-a is doing. Ms. Stoughton claims Cathy's opinions "are of little consequence". Tell that to those on the receiving end of the organizations he helps fund, including some who try to "fix" gay people through "reparative therapy" which does significant harm to many people, including leading some to commit suicide. I'd call that a consequence.

I highly respect their right to free speech and to not support same-sex marriage. I DO NOT support organizations that pay into hate speech.
And don't even get me started on the disgusting, factory farm cruelty that does into "producing" chickens for this type of restaurant. Where is the "morality" in that?

Opinions are of little consequence. They are only thoughts. Thoughts do not harm anyone. It's action that is significant.

Well I am a liberal and proud to be one. And in regards to this matter. One cannot profess freedom of speech,unless one is willing to hear the opposite point of view. I do not agree with Cathy's views,and that is my right. And vice-versa. The simple solution is if you do not beieve in Chick-Fil-A stance just odn't go to it. To deny the business simply because you don't like their views is not right. Opinions are just that. It is the actions that are the problem. And so far I have not read where Chick-Fil-A has denied anyone of their rights.

Mr. Cathy is entitiled to Free Speech. No one disputes that. Mr. Cathy is entitled to donate money to groups he chooses. No one disputes that, either. However, don't be surprised that all people don't laud his piety when these groups he donates to espouse violence and discrimination against homosexuals. And don't be surprised that straight people who care about equal rights, and homosexual Americans and who are denied the same rights as straight people, conduct lawful protests against this man's business. The discrimination against gays costs us money, jobs, homes, and for some, their lives. Think this is overly dramatic? Ask Matthew Shepherd's mom. Google search "states where you can be fired for being gay" or "states where you can be denied housing based on orientation." Google "violence against gays" and see what returns appear. Perhaps the recent home invasion where three men broke into a lesbian's home, tied her up, and carved slurs into her stomach with a knife. What does that have to do with Mr. Cathy? Millions of dollars buys a lot of influence. And, when you spend millions of dollars to marginalize a group, and publicly say gays "invite God's wrath on America" it is hateful, unChristian, and invites unbalanced people to take cues from this and commit acts against the marginalized group. This is fact, and it is history, for more than just gays and lesbians. Marriage is a civil right. Think and say what you want, but please stop denying others their civil rights.

A couple of interesting links: http://watchmebe.livejournal.com/736191.html; http://www.facebook.com/notes/bradley-j-hartman/an-open-letter-to-chick-fil-a/10150979531623367.

While I agree that Mr. Cathy has the right to express his opinion and beliefs on this or any other subject and, as others have stated, we can do the same by not supporting his business, I also agree that these opinions can lead to destructive actions. Perhaps these actions are not done by Mr. Cathy or others who make these public professions but they are often done by others who read them or hear them.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I do not hate Mr. Cathy or any other person who disagrees with me on this or other issues. I suspect Mr. Cathy and others who think like him would deny that I can be a Bible-believing Christian, let alone a Bible-believing preacher, and support same-sex marriage. Honestly, none of us truly knows who is right and who is wrong on this. I hope I am right but I know there is always a possibility that I am wrong.

My faith, as strong as it is and as much of a part of my life as it is, is MY faith. It is not your faith or Mr. Cathy's faith and, though I will sometimes assert my faith in the public square, I know that it cannot be used as a justification for, or against, civil rights for all people in this country. For me, that is the bottom line. Will we truly believe and will hold the standard of "all men are created equal" and "equal justice under the law" or are they just words? Either we believe the words in the Pledge of Allegiance, "liberty and justice for all" are true and matter or we should stop saying them.

Alot of interesting and valued reading here. Unfortunately, I think, too much attention and comment was directed in the wrong direction. The simple issue is...who the hell does the mayor of chicago think he is! It is he and his government that committed the first wrong here and most seem to be willing to give him a pass. This is really about misuse of governmental power.

No to same sex marriage, eat a chick-fil-a!!!

Pastor shame on you . You don't speak for me or my religion. No to same sex marriage.

Interesting, Francis. Pastor Suzanne never claimed to speak for your religion or faith. IN fact, she explicitly says it is HER faith she speaks for, not yours or anyone else's. She even says she may be wrong.

I keep hearing, "Homosexual Americans are denied the same rights as straight people". What does that mean? I never knew that Straights and Gays had separate rights.

I think there are more important things to deal with in this world than what the President of Chick whatever thinks or believes. You have families starving all over the world. ( Guess if ChickFila sent food over there they should refuse to eat it and just die). You have issues in Syria, you have unemployment, the economy, etc etc. Yet people dwell on things that are way down the to do list. Sounds like our government. Let's do the easy things first and worry about the hard things later.

Speaking out against anybody's lifestyle choice is wrong. In a few years, Chick-Fil-A will probably regret their stand. Attitudes are changing, and this will be an issue that will seem as wrong as any form of discrimination. I agree that Mr. Cathy has a right to speak his opinion as archaic as it may be, but I have a right to never purchase his company's product until they publicly change their stance.

I have always thought that the gay community should be able to "
join" and have the same rights as any married couple. And, I think they would get a bit more respect if they stopped insisting their union be called a marriage. Call it something else! Now, why is that important? Because words mean something. Marriage translates to husband and wife. When a same sex couple can tell me how they introduce their "partner" to somone to telegraph that the individual is their life partner...then, I will tell you what you should call their "union." It won't be marriage because they won't use the husband and wife termonoligy will they.
I strongly believe that is the real objection most folks have. And the gays...they want to push that marriage word to get some kind of silly respect or recognition that their life style is the same. It's not...and thats OK.

Hell no to same sex marriage.

In 2012, it is TRULY sad to see businesses publically announcing their religious beliefs and “defining” what a family and marriage is composed of. Personally, I think it is just a media attention stunt by Chick-A-Fil to boost their sales. Just as people have a right to freedom of speech, people have a right to love who they choose to love. Gender does NOT define what is considered a family or marriage. Just like government and public schools are not allowed to discuss religion/religious views, nor should the business sector. In this day and age, with the way our economy is, unemployment, foreclosures, people committing mass murders, etc…. I truly believe we have BIGGER issues to focus on/about, other than people’s PERSONAL sexual preferences and relationships. I wish people and companies would use their, time, money & energy to support important issues instead of giving media attention and money to a company that discriminates and exploits a person’s sexuality to gain profit by the ignorance of others!

Abe - you are the one missing the point
"What I was referring to is that just because a small minority of society would like us all to believe they are the true standard bearers of enlightened thought, and can redefine morality for the rest of us "backward thinking" folks, is a fallacy, once again disproved by yesterday's record breaking turnout."

-The true standard bearers of enlightened thought don't want to redefine morality for the rest of you. We just want you to stop trying to define morality for those of us who do not share your religious beliefs.
If you don't believe in marriage for gay people, fine. Then you (Abe specifically) should not get married if you are gay.
If you want to teach your kids the earth is only 10,000 years old.... fine with me. Just don't try to get that in the pubic schools.
The point is that YOU don't get to impose YOUR morality on the rest of us.
No one is trying to stop you from believing that gay marriage is wrong. We just want you to stop trying to prevent other people from exercising their rights that appear to be base on a different moral foundation than yours.

Steve Walsh: I agree about civil vs. religious marriage. I personally don't see what the big deal is about redefining marriage--words get redefined all the time. Christmas is a great example: it has increasingly secular meaning despite being at it's core a Christian holiday. But separating civil and religious unions for all people would eliminate a lot of this controversy.

Oh Abe.....
When you say "God's ordained definition of marriage." are you including:
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 20:18
Leviticus 20:14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
1 Timothy 5:11-12
- but I am only assuming Abe holds Judeo-Christian beliefs. If not, I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

No Abe... you are to assume that I took a few minutes to carefully think out my reply to your questions.
abe carver:
"How are the majority of us who are supportive of the historical and long standing (both secular and religious) definition of marriage simply trying to impose their own morality?"
-Because you are attempting to prevent other people from from having a right other people have. You are not being forced to participate in anything but you are preventing others from participating.
Just because something is a historical and long standing (both secular and religious) definition does not make it a moral definition. (The prohibition of Inter-racial marriage would be a good example of this.)

"If that is the case, then would you deny the status of marriage to any or all of the following: marriage between siblings * yes for scientifically proven medical reasons
a marriage involving three or more persons *no
a marriage between a human and a member of another species or an inanimate object? * yes because there can be no consent by the other species or an inanimate object

Why can't everyone just respect everyone else? What am I missing here? This is, and I cannot say this nicely I suppose, at the fault of certain religions for binding to people to what they have to think of as right and wrong. Religion so often doesn't leave for shades of gray.

Everyone arguing this is still missing the larger point: You shouldn't eat at Chik-Fil-A because the food is awful.

Also, to the people referencing the bible as a defense mechanism to protect free speech and the sanctity of marriage, the bible also outlined that it was okay to own slaves. So since everyone else is painting broad brush strokes here, so will I: "If you believe in the bible, you believe in slavery."

I'm out for the weekend, have fun everyone.

The erosion of marriage does violence to our society, and that is not loving our neighbors. It is not kind or good to raise any kind of sinful behavior to the level of general approval.

The Word of God was around long before the 1500s. The church declared an official acceptance of which books were in & which weren't about a thousand years before that. But that was only a "stamp of approval." They were eventually revealed as the compilation of 66 books we see today, but some of the texts were around since the time of Moses. And before they were written, earliest man had a form of God's law from the prophets.

I have been quiet for a long time, and tolerant of many things, but when there is this kind of backlash because one man says he stands for traditional marriage, it disturbs me to the point where I cannot let my silence be confused for tacit approval.

Abe:
Sure... I will enlighten you since you ask.
What I (or you) deem moral is not the standard. The difference is you are trying to exclude people from living the way they wish even though it does not harm you or anyone else. I desire that all consenting adults to have equal rights under the laws of the United States (regardless of if I agree with them personally or not.)
Regarding " thousands of years of tradition, secular governance and diverse religious principles": You seem to be trying to make the point that for thousands of years the tradition has been one man & one woman defining marriage. You are incorrect. The bible has many examples of polygamy (see Genesis, Exodus, Dueteronomy, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, etc). Polygamy is currently legal in 47 countries. Your argument that thousands of years of history and tradition define marriage as you see it is incorrect.

Steve: Because there have been cultural aberrations throughout history, none of which were clearly endorsed by God, these should now form the basis for our current treatment as to the ideal definition of marriage. So under Steve's Moral Code (as referenced earlier), history’s lowest common denominators would also be one of the standards to be applied. Very interesting, I am becoming more enlighten with every exchange.

Steve, While I am glad you find parts of the Bible apparently so entertaining, I guess if your reading of the Bible in its totality leads you to believe that God endorses the selling of children into our modern understanding of what constitutes slavery, then I am even now more enlightened as to why you have no moral objections to incest or polygamy per Steve Walsh’s Moral Code.

LMS: - thanks & well put.

anyway... Abe, I want to thank you for providing me with a stimulating day.
I am confident that I will not change your mind & you will not change mine. I do hope both our comments leave an impression on anyone who was undecided on this issue.
History has shown that justice falls on the side of people that want to extend rights to more people and not on the side of people that want to limit the rights of people.
Thanks again for your time today Abe. (I am not being sarcastic)

What is with this country? We can't give our opinions anymore? While I believe is probably wasn't the smartest thing for the President of Chick-fil-A to say, but he still has his right to his opinion. So what if he disagrees with gay relationships. He never said he wouldn't serve them.

Well if we want to think that "it wasn't the smartest things for him to say"...what will these comments reflect tomorrow after the KISS IN is called into play by the gay community as a public show. You know, I respect their right to do that. I think it reflects bad judgement. I also think some will find certain aspects "chilling." Somehow two women kissing in public gives off one set of vibes but two men kinda is like running your fingers over frosted glass. I would expect a real explosion of views tomorrow! Those who think public shows of affection are in bad tases will have their tolerance levels tested.

Edward, that is what I'm afraid of.

I've seen pictures of the parades.. Cringe