CHICK-fil-A has refuted claims by Chicago politicians that its charitable foundation will stop giving donations to organizations that oppose same-sex “marriage.” However, the organization also made it emphatically clear that it takes no position as an institution against same-sex “marriage.”

“Our intent is not to support political or social agendas,” a company statement released yesterday said.

So much for the company’s bold Christian principles.

—– Comments —-

H.M. writes:

I think you were a little hard on Chick-fil-A with the “So much for the company’s bold Christian principles” comment.

I think the issue is that they have held to an inconsistent position from the beginning. They have attempted to say, “We have no issue with homosexuality itself, and have no problem with homosexual franchise owners etc, but we wish to reserve marriage for heterosexuals. That is a game that cannot be played forever. I am reminded of an article that I read in wake of Prop 8 court overule in California. I think the whole article is informative but the quote that has stuck to me since reading it a few years ago is this “…in order to challenge the legitimacy of “same-sex marriage,” conservatives have to be willing to challenge the moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior itself. To concede even for the sake of argument that such behavior is morally unobjectionable is effectively to concede the whole issue.” Chick-fil-A has never been that hardcore on the issue, therefore it is not surprising that they conceded some ground at some point. I think that Chick-fil-A’s goal at this point is to attempt to strengthen marriage without engaging in a protracted war against homosexuals. At the end of the day, I don’t believe that such is an ultimate solution, but I don’t question their good will.

Laura writes:

Chick-fil-A’s statement of corporate purpose says:

“To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

In keeping with this statement, the company refuses to do business on Sundays, which is a laudable and honorable position.

While I agree with you that it is important to challenge the morality of homosexuality itself, the company could still have dealt with the issue this week with the same sort of conviction that Dan Cathy expressed when he said that same-sex “marriage” was “inviting God’s judgment on our nation,” and in doing so made an important defense of its principles.

For instance, in its corporate response this week, the company could have stated that it will remain involved in social issues and devote a significant share of its profits to the fight to preserve marriage as an institution that excludes homosexual couples. It also could have remained at the very least silent on the issue of employing homosexuals.

Paul writes:

The owners are foolish or have lousy public relations or legal advice or all the above. The corporation is closely-held, that is, it is a corporation controlled by a few shareholders. In this case, it is held by a family; therefore it is not beholden to public shareholders. The family should have ended the confusion, and probably, the discussion early. Even now an appropriate statement might not be too late. The family should have said, “Although our shareholders believe homosexuality is wrong and will continue to support the Bible’s views about it, our shareholders are devoted to ensuring every employee and job applicant is treated respectfully, friendly, justly, and in accordance with the law.”

Maybe the shareholders have not followed the advice of their attorneys and counselors at law. Or their attorneys are sycophants or family. To avoid sycophancy, most institutions insist on independent legal advice.

Jane S. writes:

H.M. writes:

“I think that Chick-fil-A’s goal at this point is to attempt to strengthen marriage without engaging in a protracted war against homosexuals.”

The “protracted war against homosexuals” is not optional, the same way the “protracted war against Islam” is not optional.

They’re the ones who want war. We either give it back to them and win, or try to negotiate and lose.

Please follow and like us: