Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Eat More Chicken...AT CHICK-fil-A

I was sent an email concerning Chick-fil-A. It seems that Chick-fil-A has become the target of the homosexual agenda. You can read an article about it HERE.

I am sharing this for a couple of reasons. One, just in case you were not aware that Chick-fil-A had become a target, I think you should know. Two, in case you were not aware of Chick-fil-A's operating principles, now you can be aware. Three, we as Christians ought to be supportive of such businesses that stand for, promote and support Biblical ideals. Four, to demonstrate that those who call for "so much tolerance" are indeed themselves an intolerable intolerant bunch.

Although this issue is a little over a month old, I encourage you to share this with others AND to contact Chick-fil-A and let them know of your support.

You can contact Chick-fil-A HERE.


Byron said...

OK, I support First Amendment rights (even for Fred Phelps and his cult of virtually lobotomized automatons of hate, though I also reserve the right to tell them where to go and how to get there the fastest). Chick-Fil-A can be closed on Sundays if they want. That's fine, I guess. They can oppose homosexuality, too. It's a free country. But sooner or later that particular ideological (and I dare say, religious) position will cost them financially, perhaps to the point of forcing a choice between doing business or keeping faithful to what you believe. I'm agnostic now, so I come from the left side of this issue because I no longer have any religious reasons against it, and I've not found any secular ones to my satisfaction. I'm not gay, or know anyone that's gay, either. And I hate that they're closed on Sundays, personally, as that's usually when I have a desire to go to one (ironically enough, hehe), though I understand the desire to follow one's religion (especially Christianity for them) on special calendar days of the week. I think if evangelical Christianity in general had a better track record when it came to marriage and divorce, then even unpopular views such as opposing homosexuality would be better tolerated, or at least respected. But anyway, that's just me ranting... Hope you are doing well.

Luke said...


Well, cyberspace is now the recipient of my initial response to you. So I'll try again.

If Chick-fil-A were to operate under the gain the world principle then it would cease to be a Christian company. The fact that they are so successful, even being closed on Sundays, testifies to the blessing of God. While they obviously strive to make a profit, I'm sure that CfA is more concerned with gaining the treasures of heaven than the treasures of men.

The hypocrisy within the Evangelical Community notwithstanding, Christian values would no more be acceptable to those pursuing the desires of the flesh than the values(or lack thereof) of the non-Christian would be to the Christian. It is simply a case where good is called evil and evil is called good.

Am doing well. Enjoying the beauty of spring time.

selahV said...

your BAAACK! so glad to see sumthin here.

sad that we as Christians are the ones under constant fire for being who we are and standing for the Gospel message in our lives. I have not heard of any hate-directed intolerance toward the homosexual community. I do know that CfA has a policy for their store managers. They cannot be divorced. So are we going to have the divorced of the world stand up and start protesting and boycotting? whatever. no problem. The point is that God is indeed blessing them...for whatever reason He has chosen to do so. I eat there occasionally. I will probably eat there a bit more now. thanks for making me aware. and thanks for coming to my site today. did you see where I figured out how to provide subscriptions to the email box? I am sooooo excited to be a bit more techie. ha ha.

Byron...hello, still praying for you. I know you'll be back on the right side of where you belong someday. selahV

Byron said...

SelahV, thanks!

Luke, I see where you are coming from, but there's no way to prove that the blessing of God is the reason for CfA's success. Other companies are also successful in business, but may not agree with the theological views of CfA. And if we analyzed the two, we would probably see that both implemented good business strategies combined with targeted advertising based on market research. But, only the business we "like" will be blessed by God in our view, and there's no way to prove otherwise, as it is a faith assertion. I'm fine with your freedom to assert that, but of course I don't buy it (no pun intended, as I happen to like CfA's food). I also don't appreciate their stance on divorce for managers, according to what SelahV shared. Divorce is bad, but even when it's the person's fault, that bears no reflection on his or her ability to manage a store's business. Having store policy exclude divorced people from management is just plain nutty and insulting, as the position isn't one of ministry or even directly related to religion in any way. What next? No muslims allowed? Or, oops, lost your faith? You're fired! Hit the door, buddy. Or, what if they divorced before becoming Christian? Even if there's allowance for that, it imposes religious litmus tests for what should be a merit-based employment, not a religious-based discrimination test (which is exactly what it would be, wouldn't it?).

Also, Christian values are not necessarily distasteful to the non-Christian simply because they're considered "Christian." Take stealing for example. Most societies figured out that was wrong pretty quick. Christianity does not own morality, and is not even the most superior form of morality, I believe, because even though it includes many very positive forms of morality, it also bases some morality on purely religious interpretations. And that's fine among Christians, who share the same moral framework in which to operate. Point taken, though. But you have to admit that hypocrisy destroys witness, even if that witness is intentionally good.

Luke said...


Hypocrisy destroys witness whether the witness is religiously related or not.

Point not taken about Christianity not owning morality. Christianity after all is Christ and there is NO other higher standard/moral than The Christ. So as The Christ, Jesus, is the very representation of God in the flesh, there can be no appeal to anyone higher.

I'll go so far as to say Byron that any "good" business that profits, profits because of the blessing of God. EVERY good and perfect gift comes from above. There are some "morally bankrupt" businesses that turn a profit but that is simply because sin does have its pleasures if only for a season.

To go so far as to say that CfA cannot hire or fire whom they choose for any reason is to simply be UNamerican. We have crossed the line so far as to being politically correct and abandoning the free market that we have forgotten that the OWNER of the business gets to HIRE and FIRE whomsoever he wills. Why? He/She OWNS the business. This political trip our country is taking down the road of socialism is leading us from the moral and fiscal foundations that brought this country so much success. CfA, while not a non-profit is a Christian Company holding Christian ideals and it should not surprise us or distress us that they operate their business the way that they do. If you don't want to support them, then eat somewhere else. That is what the free market system allows. But a free market system does not equate to a free morality system. And there are those who lack morality who are incensed that those who hold to morality actually stand by and practice that morality. We are Rome in a microwave. The bell will soon ding and we'll be done, morally and financially speaking.

So, it would not bother me if a Chevrolet Factory did not hire people who drove Fords, etc, ad nauseum. For a Christian company to not hire Muslims is no more of a surprise to me that a Muslim business would not hire a pig farmer.

In conclusion, I think it is wise for Christians to support those who hold to like morals hence my support and encouragement for CfA. Let's just say, I'm encouraging Christians to vote with their money.

Byron said...


Of course. As a Christian, you believe that Christ is the ultimate source and authority for all morality. That's understandable. I should have prefaced what I said with "I believe..." because obviously I don't hold to that. Even if Christianity was true, Christ simply isn't necessary to formulate good ethics, at least those which are not purely religious in nature.

And, I understand that business owners need to have certain levels of freedom to operate their businesses and hire personnel. Unfortunately, thanks to human nature, they cannot be given free reign to hire or refuse to hire just anyone they want, or you wind up with things like nepotism, gender discrimination, and the like. Why? Because you and I both would say that people are not basically good. The market system can never be totally free due to this very fact alone, if nothing else, and that doesn't require socialism either. All the examples you bring up are reasonable, and I don't think anyone would (or at least should) dispute those. But those are not the reasons we have hiring laws in the first place.

Yes, Christians will vote with their money. Non-Christians will vote with theirs. In places where Christians form a minority, spending power will be proportionally less to the general population at large. That is both why the AFA boycotts sometimes work and sometimes they do not, regardless of what one's concept of sin is, or how long a "season" of sin lasts, etc. Democracy is a wonderful thing when your side is in the majority, but in the case of Christianity, that is not the case everywhere, and of course, we may see fewer Christians in this country as time goes on. So, where Christians are a minority, their rights should be protected (hypothetical example, non-religious businesses should not be able to refuse to hire people simply because they are Christian, etc). And that gets us back to ethical standards in hiring like here, and also concerning businesses that express certain religious opinions (which they should have the freedom to do). I am not sure what the answer is, but I believe it should be fair for everyone.

Byron said...

Oh, I wanted to add that though I am not familiar with hiring law, refusing to hire someone based on their religion is probably illegal best I can tell. So, for Christians to refuse to hire Muslims, or vice-versa, based on religion alone, is probably illegal. And besides, it has no bearing on the person's ability to do the job. I want to add as an aside, just because someone disagrees with "Christian" morality does not inherently make them immoral or anti-moral, but I understand that Christians feel anything un-Christian is immoral because it contradicts the Christian scriptures which they hold to have supreme authority. What I fear the most is an official or unofficial theocracy under any religion (especially Muslim Sharia), but even under the Baptist form of religion that I'm most familiar with. I've been a firm supporter of the separation of church and state for almost as long as I can remember, once I began thinking about the issues involved. And I think it applies here. America is not entirely Christian, but a melting pot. And I think fundamental, evangelistic Christians are in a shrinking minority. Their rights should be protected, without giving superior rights. That's all I meant.

Luke said...


In making my appeal to Christ, I am attempting to set forth that in "true" Christianity, the "ideal" for ALL morality is found because it is truly found in Christ. So even if a person claims as yourself to not believe(in the fullest sense) the Christ, I'm still going to say that their appeal to morality basically finds itself in root at Jesus. Otherwise, morality is only what triumphs at the time and life is truly a survival of the fittest. That is an option that even the most viral of liberal idealogues really wants to embrace because then life would degenerate into anarchy. A true Christian does not appeal to himself or any earthly authority but rather to the Lord of All authority, Jesus.

Now, I understand that you make no pretense about your agnostic thoughts about God. But in such a state of "not knowing" you really leave yourself nowhere to sit except the edge of a fence. We either appeal to "man" or we appeal to the "God-Man". One designates a system that is desperate for change, the latter designates a system that is Unchanging.

Having said that, please know that I am NOT for stoning homosexuals. I am NOT for firing them just because they are homosexuals UNLESS their lifestyle is contrary to the vision of the company. BUT I AM for keeping EVERYONE'S sex lives in the closet instead of out in the open for everyone to view. Also, my denunciation of homosexual activity is not a consigning of said individual to hell or destruction, THAT is God's place.


Byron said...


I understand the Christian viewpoint very well. "Christ" and "Christianity" defined everything for me, and I filtered everything I looked at through those lens and judged according to the Christian context about everything. You are only doing what you are supposed to do as a sincere, serious Christian, and believe me, I understand that and can even respect it. That makes it no more real for me than if followers of Zeus still existed today and appealed to Zeus as the source and final authority for everything, however.

Morality without Christ (or a religious basis more generally) does not simply have to equate to anarchy and self-centeredness. It certainly can, but it is not a necessary inference. I do not understand much about secular-based systems of social ethics, but ethical systems can be good, even without being absolute or unchanging. It would only be natural to expect a social ethics system to reflect the mores and views of its culture to an extent, though I would still appeal to the human conscience in general as an "absolute" (it isn't, of course, as there are always exceptions) of sorts. But not being absolute, or pretending to be divine in origin, secular ethical systems have the advantage of gradual improvement and development over time, as well as flexibility in unforeseen circumstances. And you did not say so, but much of your system is dependent upon a Holy Spirit to guide believers, of whom we have no evidence that could be presented in a court of law or a scientific laboratory. So it is reasonable to doubt that such a thing (person) as the Holy Spirit actually exists, at least for me.

I am NOT for firing them just because they are homosexuals UNLESS their lifestyle is contrary to the vision of the company.

You lost me here. What part of a homosexual's lifestyle would be in agreement with a company such as CfA's vision, except for eating, sleeping, and doing his or her job? Are you saying that the restriction is for homosexuals to be celibate? Or follow some version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" I don't understand what you meant here.

BUT I AM for keeping EVERYONE'S sex lives in the closet instead of out in the open for everyone to view.

I thought I understood what you meant here, so I was going to say I agree, but then I second-guessed my understanding. I don't think anyone should be talking about who they slept with on company time, of course. But do you mean that heterosexual couples, even if married, can't hold hands, kiss in public, or show public affection? In the workplace, that wouldn't be appropriate anyway, so if that's the case, I would agree. But I get the impression from some that it's OK to be heterosexual in public, but not homosexual. And that's what I have to disagree with in principle, though if someone is homosexual, I would greatly prefer to not know about it, and for that person to keep their sexual activities to himself or herself.

Byron said...

Well, to be totally honest, male homosexuality disgusts me, but female homosexuality doesn't. Don't ask me why. Attractive lesbians are OK in my book. :)

Luke said...

Byron Byron Byron(said with a chuckle and a grin)

I certainly will be glad to clarify for you because I have not communicated unless you understand what I am communicating.

Okay, as far as a company vision. CfA has, as part of their vision, honoring Christ. The homosexual lifestyle DOES NOT honor Christ. Thus, supporting or hiring them would be contrary to company vision. The company vision does support being saved from such a lifestyle and as such, supports those organizations that hold to the same vision. CfA's vision is not simply to make money but to Honor Christ.(hopefully, I've made my statement clearer)

As pertaining to keeping one's sex life in the closet, while I am not opposed to PDA's, holding hands, a quick kiss, hug...even heterosexual couples need to keep the rest for the bedroom. I was arguing that heteros are becoming too much of an open book in public, and by this I mean people in general who cannot keep their hands off one another to say it politely. Gay parades and Mardi Gras go hand in hand. Both look for an excuse to ADVERTISE (with little left to the imagination). That's what I mean.(CLEARER???)

I wasn't going to address your last post but caution be to the wind. Your last post is exactly WHY I state that there must be a Standard for morality and not simply our passing whims.

Byron said...

Thanks for the clarification.

But, Luke, that's really too simplistic. At best, you're back to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." CfA wouldn't hire open homosexuals, but might unknowingly hire closeted ones. So if those are found out, they get fired, or what? I'm sorry, but some things, such as sexual orientation, probably shouldn't even factor into job considerations, unless it actually somehow would impact the job one way or the other.

And, my last post doesn't mean I want to cast morality to the wind, and go with my passing whims. There are many standards of morality, and Christianity is just one of them. Naturally, Christians would hold to their own in exclusion of all others, but that doesn't mean there aren't others, or that they're necessarily bad just because they aren't "Christian" (and thanks to splintered Christianity, there are at least as many versions of that as there are splinter groups in Christianity, so which one of those competing visions of morality is the right one?).

I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for the interaction. Have a great day!