Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that Chick-fil-A is under venomous attack by many members of the Democrat Party fueled by the LGBT community. They accuse the nation’s second largest fast food chain of being anti-gay (as opposed to how they describe themselves… “pro-traditional family”).
Frankly, I could care less whether a person is gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, or whatever… in just about every single case, it’s not my business to know what people do behind closed doors. And I resent people telling me if they sleep with men, women or both. I don’t care who you sleep with. Why do some think it’s my business? It’s not. And it certainly is not the business of children, which is one of the biggest reasons I don’t like this issue as a public debate.
The bottom line is that “gay marriage” is not an issue that I am passionate about one way or the other. And so this article is not in support of one side of the issue over another. You’ll never see me waving a rainbow flag nor will you ever see me waving a straight pride flag. I’ll pass the rallies up and watch some football instead.
This article is about the total and utter complete hypocrisy of the left. Follow along.
You see, up until May 9, 2012 — the date that Obama came out in support of gay marriage — the very same people complaining about Chick-fil-A today were mum on Barack Obama then. And it’s not like Obama, President of the United States, and 91-year old Samuel Truett Cathy, Founder of Chick-fil-A, shared very different views on gay marriage. In fact, they were very similar…
- Samuel Truett Cathy believes in marriage between a man and a woman.
- Barack Obama believed in marriage between a man and a woman.
- Samuel Truett Cathy, whose philanthropic causes focuses primarily on the welfare of needy children, donated money to pro-traditional family organizations (WinShape Foundation, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, etc.).
- Barack Obama’s biggest donation ever given of $22,500 was to the anti-gay Trinity United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the national body, United Church of Christ, which supports gay marriage).
Furthermore, when you look at some of the statements made by Obama in the recent past, he comes across markedly anti-gay, well, by the Democrat’s standards:
2004: “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
2004: “I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.”
2006:“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided.”
2007: “I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice.”
2008:“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
2008: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”
2009:“I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them.”
2010: “I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.”
So, Obama had made several public statements, for the better part of a decade, opposing gay marriage… and he donated money to an anti-gay church (the largest donation he ever gave), and the Democrat Party nor the LGBT community, came out with the same venom and vitriol, nor did they spew the same intolerant hatred toward Obama as they currently express now toward Chick-fil-A.
Quite simply, they have no moral authority.
Quite plainly, they have delegitimised their efforts to continue promoting gay rights.
Quite frankly, they are hypocrites of the highest order.
As protest to this hypocrisy, please support Chick Fil-A by eating at one of their locations on August 1, 2012… otherwise known as Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day.
Facebook
Twitter
“Frankly, I (Tammy Bruce)……
Tammy K. Bruce, radio host, author, and political commentator. Bruce’s website describes her as a “gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, Tea Party Independent Conservative who worked on a number of Democratic campaigns in 1990s, including the 1992 Boxer and Feinstein senate races and the Clinton for President campaign” and “also has a history of supporting Republicans as well, including President Reagan, both Presidents Bush and, quite reluctantly, John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign
…..believe the cultural trouble and moral vapidity in our society today, the moral relativism I write about in “Death of Right and Wrong” has sprung from the liberation movements of the 60s and 70s. It was then that the Left began to attack the “traditional” in the name of liberation and equality.”
Rich Warren commented [….] it is the “traditional”, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.” President Obama was there and agreed but we evolve, a product of political convenience.
And when you apply the word marriage, you are into realms of legislation that the act can’t create. That is up to the larger society. What if society defines a gay union as something sacred but different, because it is, but equal in the arena of civil rights to traditional heterosexual marriage? The civil rights of a gay union or a traditional marriage could be made equal without altering the traditional meaning of marriage, well embedded in most religions, and not imposed on the belief system of those religions or cultures that disagree. But that would never serve the agenda of the misery merchants.
There can be no doubt that religion has long been and is at the heart of great cultural order and turmoil. And the opportunists will twist and torture cultural fundaments to achieve their ends.
The redefinition of concepts and words is mandatory for the marketing of Progressivism and Social Justice. Semantics are a utility in the argument, i.e. like Fabian Socialism, now redefined as State Capitalism. Misrepresent “it” as “sounding like” something generally accepted but it is not. When results don’t jibe, cladists accuse each other of not following proper procedure or of selecting the wrong characters for comparison-a problem older than Linnaeus.
Variant traditional values are the foundation of different religions, freedom of religion, as troublesome as it is in our world, being a bed rock of our Republic. And many of us feel strongly that freedom of religion is under attack by this administration.
To paraphrase Tammy Bruce, a gay activist with impeccable credentials, “Marriage” is worth protecting, in more ways than one. If we cherish it as sacred, we must treat it as such. When society asks for a cultural thing to be left untouched, the Gay Elite become the Gay Gestapo. Who really feels that governmental or religious recognition of gay marriage is a necessary element to all gay people (or gay civil unions) feeling accepted and wanted? I have found conservatives to be more tolerant, more curious and more understanding of those who are different to them than I ever did when ensconced in US liberal leadership.”
To defeat America from within, one must destroy our Judeo-Christian philosophical beliefs. And the Reverend Wright crowd pounds their breast and proclaims “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” But do we really?
Appreciate your comment, but the article is not about marriage one way or the other… it’s about the hypocrisy of the left. How they excuse one of their own for the exact same reason they are vitriolic about when it fits their political agenda. It is intended to expose their bias. To show they have no moral authority. That they have delegitimized their position. And if one would like to go a step further, to use this as more proof that Democrats would try to drive the national discussion toward social issues that divide America than extol Obama’s bleak and crippling economic record. I like Tammy Bruce, even own one of her books, “The New Thought Police,” (and outstanding read, by the way)… but I would rather know her thoughts on whether she likes the Deluxe Chicken Sandwich better than the Chick-N-Strips at Chick-fil-A.
I get it. The Democrats are trying to hide Obama’s bleak economic record with hypocritcal moral issues which show they have moral authority. So for the Republicans the refrain should be “It’s the economy stupid?” To me, that’s political expediency for the Republicans as it was for the Democrats and the Republicans tried to deal with it the same way the Democrats are now. There is hypocrisy on both sides of the political aisles and conservatives hurl enough vitriol themselves. Listening to talk radio is proof enouth. Sorry, but I agree with Anonymous. The moral issues are infinitely more important than the political. Democracy cannot operate unless we have a moral citizinry, moral political parties and moral government officials. Our founding fathers realized that and based this country on the foundation of a moral electorate, not political issues. Frankly, I could live with a liberal as President so long as he or she is good, moral person dedicated to serve and his or her sole focus is the best interests of this country, which certainly does not describe our current President. While I will vote for Mitt, I can’t say I’m excited about the man, although he is infinitely better than our current resident of the White House.
The difference is Obama and progressives in general are willing to reconsider their beliefs and find the correct moral bearing. Kind of like when republicans decided segregation was bad….
I don’t agree with Chick Fil A’s views but they are certainly entitled to them. They also have to live with the backlash that will inevitably come from labling a certain group of humans as bad or immoral or evil. Perhaps Chick Fil A should reexamine their Christian beliefs and decide if they truly are acting in a moral way…
“Kind of like when republicans decided segregation was bad”
Ummmm…. you REALLY need to go back and read your history books. Republicans always opposed segregation. It was the Democrats who were blocking the doorways to school for the black kids, it was Democrats who turned the fire hoses on blacks during the Civil Rights movement, it was Democrats who sicced dogs on blacks, it was Democrats who largely voted against the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s… Martin Luther King was a Registered Republican. Need I go on???
How do you even have a conversation with a person like this when they don’t even know what the hell they are talking about. Seriously…
While you are educating yourself, read this one too: http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/04/the-southern-strategy-myth/
The real issue here is rather simple. “Progressive” mayors are threatening a business with government actions to keep them from actually doing business. The idea of using government policy to enforce a specific point of view is not progressive, but closer to fascism.
I agree those mayors are ridiculous. They’re almost as bad as those legislators trying to defund planned parenthood, or NPR.
The mayors are violating the Constitution and hurting economic freedom — a basic human right. Legislators trying to defund those programs that exist NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution are trying to bring this country that is $15 trillion in debt back to some fiscal sanity. So, no, they have NOTHING in common.
Well, in a world of 200 plus stations, NPR is redundent and the idea of funding planned parenthood a proper role of government is questionable and proper debate for another time. Defunding NPR and Planned Parenthoods are hardly ridiculous but ideas that can easily be defended.
Too many of the left have now decided to use the power of government to enforce their cultural view and then uses the government to fund it. There is limit to what government should do and the idea that leftist are “more willing to reconsider” is undermine by those mayors who are willing to use the power of government to enforce their version of PC and the power of government to fund and enforce their viewpoints through government funding of NPR as if ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN mainstream media is not enough.
If NPR can’t survive on its own, it should die and I suspect that there is enough George Soros out there who would be perfectly be willing to fund NPR on a private basis. Funding NPR or Planned Parenthood is little off the path that Mr. Ross discussed but as I already mention a better case can be made to defund both organization whereas these Mayors were in fact using the power of government to shut down public debate. A big difference.
Bravo… once again!