I’ll wait until you read the next post. If you notice, I found the initial controversy about the company’s donation history and his comments about look different when considered in that light. (More here.) Taken on their own, it’s at best an inference that he’s against gay marriage. Combined with the company’s financial donations and his later comments, it’s more reasonable to conclude that that’s his opinion - but going there based on just the initial comment was a stretch. So it’s a little bit distorted if you say, as HuffPo did in their headline, that he said the company is “Guilty as charged” in opposing gay marriage. But on balance it’s completely reasonable to conclude based on the company’s donations and Cathy’s other remarks that he’s against gay marriage and that Chick Fil A is using its money to fight same-sex marriage efforts.
Chickens never died for a corporation.
They died for you and me.
They are closed on Sundays. Does anyone think that someone who is so conservatively Christian would support gay marriage?
So is the problem here the press looked into his history and used that in context with the interview to establish he is indeed anti-gay?
Is the press being accused of distortion for bringing facts to the foreground? Should they have limited their entire Exposé to his statements made in the interview?
If Dan Cathy was not anti-gay and the media claimed he was. I’d agree they distorted his remarks. It’s been known a fairly long time now Dan Cathy is anti-gay. I was kinda confused when the recent story came out as ‘news.’ I guess it is news to some people.
The thing is the whole point of the interview was to respond to flack the company has been getting for funding anti SSM groups. Knowing that it seems clear that he is proudly declaring his opposition to gay marriage. I don’t think a single person in the intended audience for that interview didn’t understand what he was saying.
We want tolerance!
We want acceptance!
We demand you embrace us and agree with us on everything or we will demonize you!:rolleyes:
Meanwhile… I’m at a two day meeting in a town that has Chick-fil-A. They don’t in my home town. During a lunch break, one of the local guys wanted to walk to what he said was a great burger place. Fine. On the way, we pass a Chick-fil-A. I pipe up, "Hey, how about Chick-fil-A. I used to love that place when I lived n Texas, and they don’t have them where I live now. Anybody interested in doing that instead. A few guys said, sure, and we were all gonna meet up in 45 minutes or so. I was about to try to get the others guys to come along, but before I could, the senior guy said, “Hey, let’s all go together if they want to go. We can burgers tomorrow.” So, nine of us went to Chick-fil-A.
Mission accomplished. 
You know, I actually agree with magellan. Every Chick-fil-A in every town in America should immediately become the gay hangout. We should ALL go to Chick-fil-A. Break out your finest drag for the occasion! Let’s make it a PARTY!
Instead of being angry and nasty, we should be organizing invasion parties…BIG groups of local LGBT, butch bears to drag queens and everything in between. Just take over every Chick-fil-A we can find…do it in shifts, maybe. Not doing things that would even get straight people kicked out, like a sit-in without buying anything, but sure, give 'em our gay money, eat their Christian chickens, and just enjoy ourselves, all the while making it quite clear who we are.
Let’s see if their anti-gay stance is just opinion or if it’s something they’ll actually try to enforce in their restaurants…
Make sure you all get the Waffle fries. Good eaten’! One guy got the chicken salad sandwich. I’m not partial to chicken salad, but he said it was pretty good. But all 9 of us were really happy with the food. Spread the word.
So the proper response to the 5,422,812th rich white guy who thinks you’re subhuman and not deserving of basic human rights, and is spending lots of money to make sure you’re denied those rights, should be… hugs and kumbayas? I thought conservatives disliked hippies! 
As for the rest of your story, I know you don’t think that your “mission” is supporting state sanctioned homophobia, but I think that’s why a lot of gay people are reacting strongly to this issue. Cathy isn’t spending his money on those special interest groups for nothing, after all: he is trying to get laws enacted that basically oppress them, and is not ashamed of it. I mean, gay people are, quite frankly, “the little guy” in all this, no matter how much their political and monetary power have improved. The idea that Cathy is being harassed or oppressed by gay rights activists strikes me as ludicrous.
(Note that this is not about the whole Chicago alderman wanting to take official government action against Chik-Fil-A; that’s a whole other kettle of fish, and one I’m much more uncomfortable with.)
Here’s what you evidently just don’t get. Or won’t. Just because someone is opposed to SSM does not mean that they think gays are subhuman. Really. The former does not necessitate the latter. A few months ago Obama was against SSM, do you think he thought gays to be subhuman?
I didn’t use that word lightly. I looked at the causes Cathy gives money to, and how much. I looked at how seriously he takes his religion. I looked at articles that describe his past history in both cases.
After putting it all together (since, as you point out, just one fact on its own doesn’t mean a whole lot), on the whole, I was very comfortable in drawing that conclusion.
There’s not a lot of daylight between “you don’t deserve the same rights as every other person” and “you’re subhuman.”
If you donate heavily to the the American Family Institute, who believe gays are at fault for Katrina, the BP disaster and the recent Colorado shooting, I think you can be lumped in with the bigots beyond any reasonable doubt.
That’s the 2012 equivalent to having a hamburger at a Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro NC in 1960 just so you know. Hurray! You can say you were on one side of the Civil Rights movement of the 21st century. Congrats!
The discussion of whether opposition to same sex marriage equates to considering homosexuals to be subhuman or second class citizens is a legitmate topic within this thread.
Attacks on or defenses of magellan01’s threadshitting lunch anecdotes are not valid topics for this thread.
Take those latter discussions to a separate thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Or supporting “traditional employment”
I’m not reading all of this thread before commenting. Who DOSEN’T support traditional marriage??? For one to state that one does…( I support traditional marriage) is an obvious slam on gay marriage. I’m reminded of my racist boss, and his racsist comments, and his obligitory denials of his racism.
Well, one difference there is that Obama actually had something to gain from being publicly opposed to gay marriage. By taking that stand, he increased his likelihood of being elected to the presidency. But that’s an outlier. Very, very few people are in a position where opposing gay marriage gives them any material advantage - and I’m fairly certain Dan Cathy is no exception.
A few months ago, I would have gladly described Obama’s views on gays as homophobic. In light of recent events, it seems likely that his position did not stem from antipathy towards gays, but instead a simple cravenness. Which is not surprising, of course - he’s a politician, after all, and it’s to Obama’s favor that’s he significantly less craven than most others in that field.
Likening that level of homophobia to a view of gays as subhuman is hyperbolic, but not factually incorrect, I think. I do not see a way that one can oppose equality for gays, up to and including marriage rights, without feeling that they are also, in some measure less than a straight person.
Likening the level of homophobia displayed by Dan Cathy to a view of gays as subhuman is, I think, much, much less hyperbolic.
Ahem. Are your not aware that in this post of yours you do what you instruct other posters not do to?
So I report you to you. I look forward to toe the degree to wish you moderate yourself. 
Easy. One feels that it is a greater benefit to society to keep marriage between one man and one woman. S=The U’S’ dis that when restricting polygamy in the Mormon church. I don’ think there was any thoughts of people as being subhuman. Likewise with SSM. I’m not sure of Cathy’s complete stance on all issues concerning gay, but I’m pretty sure hew employs them, But the larger point is that being against SSM simply does not equate to hating the to or thinking them subhuman. Would you say that someone who is in favor of treating gays as equals, including something like the ability to adopt kids, but doesn’t think SSM is a good idea, thinks of gays as subhumans?