Chicken for a cause: Anti-boycott draws crowd

Chicken for a cause: Anti-boycott draws crowd

URBANA — Mark Garrett drove 50 miles Wednesday just to eat at a Chick-fil-A, and it wasn't because of the food.

Free speech, not fried chicken patties, was on Garrett's mind as he joined other customers who lined up at the Illini Union's food court and Chick-fil-A outlets nationwide to support the chain.

Company President Dan Cathy took a public stance against gay marriage last month, prompting boycotts by gay-rights groups and efforts by city officials in Boston and Chicago to block the chain from opening restaurants in their cities.

"This is a matter of free speech. The man has a right to his opinion," said Garrett, who lives in Bloomington. "Boston and Chicago have no right to ban commerce based on free speech."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared Wednesday "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day," urging supporters to eat at the restaurant. His Facebook page showed almost 640,000 people planning to take part.

Opponents of Cathy's stance have planned "Kiss Mor Chiks" for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Locally, Mark Burns, president and general manager of Fisher-based "Great News Radio" stations, promoted Huckabee's idea on his Wednesday morning broadcast, promising to buy a drink for any listener who showed up at the Illini Union Chick-fil-A on Wednesday. He ended up shelling out $95.

Burns said the line at one point snaked through the food court and into the hallway. As of 3 p.m., the restaurant had served 250 people, double the normal clientele for a summer day, officials said.

Some were there on First Amendment grounds.

"I don't care one way or the other who marries who. But nobody's gonna tell me I can or can't go to a place because of a man's personal opinion," said Johnie Hall of Champaign, who stood in line with his wife, Brenda Hall.

Others, including Garrett, said they also support "traditional marriage."

Cathy told the Baptist Press last month that the Atlanta-based company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family."

Gail Crowder of Oakwood, who brought her Bible-study group, said she doesn't believe in gay marriage, adding, "We all have sins, and their sin is no worse than mine."

Some came for the chicken.

"We're just here to eat," Kenisha Walker, standing in line with fellow UI senior Whitney White. She at first thought the restaurant was giving away free food.

There were no counter-protests, but an online petition launched earlier this year asks the university to remove Chick-fil-A from the Illini Union. It had gathered 758 signatures as of Wednesday.

The petition accuses Chick-fil-A of "homophobic policies."

"The U of I cannot fulfill its goals of creating a safe and respectful environment for its student body while allowing such a business to operate on university grounds," the petition says.

"We would no more tolerate a racist, sexist, ageist, anti-Islamic, anti-Christian or any other discriminatory business operating on university property than we will a confirmed and proud anti-LGBT business," it says.

Kyle Zak, president of the student group PRIDE, which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights on campus, said the issue isn't free speech.

"We're in no way saying that the owner of Chick-fil-A or anybody on their board of directors ... doesn't have the ability to express their views, whatever they may be," he said.

But any business that profits from students and the university has an obligation to uphold university values, he said.

"The public face of Chick-fil-A as espoused by their president embodies hate and bigotry. Those are not university values," Zak said.

A rival Facebook page called "Keep Chick-fil-A-at-UIUC" urged people to attend Wednesday.

Robert Michael Doyle, a longtime gay activist in Champaign, said he disagrees with Chick-fil-A's views, calling civil marriage a civil right. But he also thinks government shouldn't use its power to ban businesses.

"It's very important for us as gay people, as a persecuted minority, to hold fast to all those constitutional rights for everybody," Doyle said in a phone interview. "It's just as wrong to say we're going to keep (out) a gay church, a gay bar, a gay-owned business."

It would be different if the company refused to serve people based on their sexual orientation or violated laws against employment discrimination, said former Champaign County Board member Matthew Gladney, who is gay.

"The people that run the company hold a particular set of beliefs. If folks don't agree with it — which is fine, I don't agree with it — just don't eat there," he said. "Don't give them your business. That's hitting them where it hurts."

Gladney said he found it ironic that Boston's mayor asserted that Chick-fil-A had no place on the Freedom Trail.

"Freedom is all about the fact that we're not all going to agree on everything," he said.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

SwifferFan wrote on August 02, 2012 at 8:08 am

Chick-Fil-A both hires and serves anyone.  The opinions of the CEO were personal and does not reflect corporate policy.  Those who say otherwise are mistaken and need to research their facts before creating their own misinformation.

factslady wrote on August 02, 2012 at 8:08 am

Contrary to Ms. Wurth's reporting, Mr. Cathy did not take a public stance against gay marriage. He spoke in favor of the traditional family. The two are not the same.

Mark Taylor wrote on August 02, 2012 at 8:08 am

Absolutely right. When he said we'd be inviting G-D's wrath by letting the wrong people get married, he wasn't speaking against those wrong people getting married; he was speaking for us right people getting married.

It's really very simple if you just look at it right.

AnnieG wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

If you're going to rant about what another person says, then at least get it right.

No where in his statement did he say "wrath" or "letting the wrong people get married".

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

His exact words were "we are inviting God's judgment", which mean the same thing as inviting God's wrath.

l dedub wrote on August 02, 2012 at 6:08 pm

really? whos dictionary are you using ? oh your not ! you should wrath and judgement are NOT the same.

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

From wikipedia:

On June 16, while on a syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy made what was seen as an inflammatory statement. Cathy stated: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

On July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged." Cathy continued:

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Ms. Wurth could have gone further, she could have brought up the millions the company has given to anti-gay groups, and Mr. Cathy's belief that the company exists to promote their christian beliefs. 

Mark Taylor wrote on August 02, 2012 at 8:08 am

This scourge of all these wrong people wanting to get married is going to ruin marriage for us right people. Besides, no one's stopping them from getting married, right? They can just marry a person with the different equipment down below the equator, like G-D commands in HIS never ending love of certain kinds of people.

I'm so proud to be a part of this vast awakening of the persecuted chikin eaters. Eat chikin for Jesus! Just look at the diversity and youth of the group of Holy Eaters. We are the future! Why, no more than 70 or 80% of the protest eaters have gray hair. It's a veritable youth movement against those people who demand wrong marriage. I'm proud to be working to exclude them from marriage -- they don't deserve it like I do.

I can't wait to hear what Pastor Mike Hucklebee tells me to do next to stop the next group of wrong people from getting what's mine and what they don't deserve. It's the American way!

TEA PARTY!!1! WOO HOO!!!!1!

(Vote Romeny and GOP in 2012 -- we'll keep teh gays in their place!!)

mankind wrote on August 02, 2012 at 9:08 am

Why does the opinion of a guy who oversees the mass production of chicken sandwiches have such importance in this debate, anyway?

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

One of their tactics was to put interactive cd's from Focus on the Family in some kid's meals. How do you feel about religious material being slipped to childrenwith their lunch? What if they are Jewish? 

Fromthearea wrote on August 02, 2012 at 9:08 am

LOL. Oh news gazette online, you know how to pick a fight.  Did you really tag Mike Huckabee?  Really?  That guy is still a news story?  Slow week?  I hear the orchard is open.  How about some pictures of the goats and kittens instead.

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

Maybe you should know he's one of the people being talked about for the vice presidential pick. Maybe not as serious as others but still talked about. And he's the one who called for the counter-protest. 

Fromthearea wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

Outstanding.  Between Huckabee's vast appreciation of artery clogging chicken and Romney's vast "knowledge" of how Israel works we should be in good shape if they win.  HAR.  Juuuuuust kidding.  Seriously.  

Bring on the goat and kitten pictures.  I'd rather the orchard had the free advertising.  Maybe there needs to be a story about male goat on male goat action and how it disturbs the kids, or how turkeys are delicious AND american, also available for viewing there.  Or maybe heavens forbid something about Harvest Moon drive in theater and how they need to raise more funding for their digital projectors or they might not be open next year.  

Something oh... more locally interesting.

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Harvest Moon would really be interesting.

americanproud wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

Mark Taylor's attempt at being humorous and facetious is underwhelming.  Ridiculing and being condescending to people who disagree with his beliefs only serves to make him look ignorant.  He can't even spell the words he so arrogantly spews in his comments.  Mitt Romney and Tea Party supporters believe in free speech and the freedom to own and operate a business irregardless of the business owner's values.  The fact that Chick-Fil-A donates money to conservative causes has nothing to do with how it runs its successful business.  If it refused to serve anyone based on sexual preference or any other protected right, then that would be a different issue altogether, and I would be the first to end my support of it.

 

Olive Garden donates money to liberal causes that do not match my beliefs and values.  Therefore, I don't eat at Olive Garden.  However, I don't call for a national boycott of Olive Garden or berate anyone who chooses to patronize its restaurants. 

trent_il wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

Agreed. Mark Taylor is insufferably obnoxious. I would participate in the News-Gazette online community a lot more if it were not for his condescending attitude. Hardly seems worth joining in any conversation that is riddled with his moronic caricature (at least, I hope it's a caricature and he's not like that in real life).

Sid Saltfork wrote on August 02, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Mark has every right to make his comments just as you, I do.  He might upset people from time to time including me; but sometimes he is right on.  I found him to be right on regarding this issue.   

Mark Taylor wrote on August 02, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Quit Stalking m.... uh. Er...

Dang it, Sidney. How the heck am I supposed to satirize that???22?

Sid Saltfork wrote on August 02, 2012 at 3:08 pm

It is just as embarrassing for me.  Your right on this issue though.

woopitydo wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

ummm no such word as "irregardless".... just saying since we are correcting others spelling.

AnnieG wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Actually, irregardless is valid; however, your use of others is not adequately punctuated.

l dedub wrote on August 02, 2012 at 6:08 pm

irregardless was accepted in January of 2012. i agree tho its not a word.

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Mark is engaging in free speech. If it was voluntary for Chick-Fil-A to provide benefits to the spouse in a gay couple do you think they would? Or just the traditional couples? Even if both are legally married in the same state. You might want to ask yourself about that and if that's fair. 

Mark Taylor wrote on August 02, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Like KY Tea Party Senator Rand Paul said, the govermint has no right to pass laws like the Civil Rights Act and other laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating against whoever they want. That is nothing but oppression of our liberty to deny others their liberty. Why are the liberals so hypocritically intolerant of my intolerance?

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 8:08 pm

 

Why are the liberals so hypocritically intolerant of my intolerance?

Because we are liberals, dang it! 

Sid Saltfork wrote on August 02, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Treetops;  Mark knows how to spell.  His comments are directed to the Tea Party types intentionally; and they spark responses just like yours.  He has the same right to express his opinion as you do.  America has come to the point where radical political views are the mainstream; nothing Moderate anymore.  Now, it has come down to even selling chicken.  Are Americans coming to the point where they purchase items, or boycott items based on a corporate owner's prejudices?  Stand in line to buy chicken if you like the chicken; but don't stand in line to buy chicken while commenting on other people's right to get married, praising Jesus, or radical politics.  Your there to eat the chicken; not to hold a political rally.  

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 7:08 pm

But Sid, The chicken money is going to hate groups. That's what some people have a problem with. If it was the guy's personal money it would be one thing but it's becoming what the company stands for. He doesn't want them to be separate. Does he want the employees to represent that message too?

Sid Saltfork wrote on August 02, 2012 at 8:08 pm

rsp;  Adolph Hitler gave Henry Ford a medal for his facist views.  The founder of IBM received one also.  Coors' beer donates money to right wing causes.  Bill Gates of Microsoft donates to Democrat causes.  It can go back, and forth; and it has for years, and years.  Buy the chicken if you feel it is the best chicken you can buy.  What I am against is using the product for political reasons.  I found it disgusting that the owner donates money to causes that I oppose.  I found it more disgusting that people who never ate his chicken showed up for political, and religious reasons rather than the chicken.  I find it equally disgusting that the opposing group is going to demonstrate in the restaurants on Friday.  The owner received a ton of free publicity for his restaurants; and made a huge profit over the past few days, and will in the next few days.  The whole thing by the owner, the supporters, and the opponents is hypocritical, and absurd.  It's just a damned chicken sandwich.  Now if I want a chicken sandwich; I have to be careful where I buy it because people may think that I may be for somenthing, or against something other than only wanting a chicken sandwich.  We both read this newspaper; but we know what, and who it supports.  Yet; we read it for the news, not the opinions.     

Ellen wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

I have to agree MANKIND..and am I the only one that thinks this screams of FREE ADVERTISING??? Honestly, I had NO idea that this restaurant even existed in our area and maybe I live under a rock or something but quite frankly, until this all started, I'm not sure I have ever heard of the place at all. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 am

There is a big difference between shared views and proactively marginalizing people based on sexual orientation. This isn't about access to chicken sandwiches it's about access to dignity for those people who simply want to have the same rights as others.

7lw7 wrote on August 02, 2012 at 11:08 am

I'm not sure if those people who say this is about free speech really understand the whole picture. What Dan Cathy said reflects Chick-Fil-A's company stance on gay people. Chick-Fil-A has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay groups, such as the Family Research Council (a SPLC certified hate group) that advocate making homosexual "behavior" illegal, exporting gays, etc. Another commenter said these were Dan Cathy's personal views and do not reflect corporate policy, but in fact the opposite is true.

I don't think anyone is saying that Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A cannot have their views, or cannot express their views. Of course they can. It's a right. The issue here is that this company uses profits to support hate groups. If anyone really thinks that cities like Chicago and Boston shouldn't have the right to deny new Chick-Fil-A restaurants, then they should try to understand that it has always taken political movements, activists, and politicians to say "no" to supporting hate policies to actually make a change. Free speech works both ways: Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A have the right to use their voices and money to say whatever they want; Chick-Fil-A protesters have the right to speak against them and encourage a boycott.

Just to add a little something else, I agree that Mark Taylor's comments aren't particularly helpful or even funny. Let's leave the political parodying to Stephen Colbert.

 

alabaster jones 71 wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Profile Picture

"I don't think anyone is saying that Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A cannot have their views, or cannot express their views."

Except you are saying that when you say that cities should have the right to ban Chick Fil A due to said views.

Kudos to Mr. Gladney and Mr. Doyle for their reasonable perspectives on this issue.  I'm sorry, 7lw7, but it is not the government's job to punish businesses due to political disagreements.  That is a terrifying precedent.

DEB wrote on August 02, 2012 at 11:08 am

I don't get the outrage.

Perhaps I am alone in this, but my marriage is not threatened by someone else's marriage. Gay or not. I am not going to dump my marriage just because gay marriage, interracial marriage, or interspecies marriage is or is not legal.

Liberals have made a strategic error in saying it is religion that makes them boycott Chic Filet. If they want to bocott Chic Filet because they give to radical causes, fine. But don't bring religion into it. Boycott Blackwater too.

Appreciate that Chic Filet does not discriminate against gays in employment. Corporate employees get good wages, healthcare, pensions, etc. It is a good corporate citizen. Boycott them because they give money to radicals. Not because they have a religion. 

I, for one, do not think government has any role in controlling religious sacraments. If one religion allows interracial marriage and anothe does not, so be it. Ditto same sex, etc. Government should have nothing to do with religion.  It might have a say in tax deductions (for marriage, or any thing else), but it is a great travesty to think that our founders wanted it to control religious sacraments.

Bulldogmojo wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." ~ Christopher Hitchens

americanproud wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

In response to bulldogmojo:  What?

Bulldogmojo wrote on August 02, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Point being...people who think they have divine permission from the heavens to impose their will on other people’s lives through intimidation, manipulation of the law by their vote or money, guilt, fear, credulity in the supernatural, incantation etc. are stagnated in their infantile and unevolved mindsets.


I think it would have been copyright infringement to copy and paste the entire text of Hitchens’ book "God is not Great; How Religion Poisons Everything", so I just gave the one quote.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Profile Picture

DEB, I was right with you until the part about sacraments. Maybe I read you wrong, and you're not suggesting that marriage is a religious institution, rather than a contractual relationship.

 

But for those who might not know:

 

Religion tries to adopt/usurp cultural traditions that grab the public imagination. The winter solstice & light festival, especially the pagan Yule tree are now labeled "Christmas."

 

Marriage is like that too. A lot of people buy into that narrative, and believe that marriage is a religious tradition. In fact, it's always been about money, power and property. 

americanproud wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Correction noted.  Thank you for pointing out that there is no such word as "irregardless."  It should be "regardless."

Feltrino wrote on August 02, 2012 at 12:08 pm

"but any business that profits from students and the university has an obligation to uphold university values,"

University values.  That's a joke, right?

nomad wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Profile Picture

Just like Chicago values right?  Yes when Champaign-Urbana grows up i want it to be just like Chicago. :(

hd2006 wrote on August 03, 2012 at 7:08 am

Ah yes Chicago, home of jesse jackson and the rainbow coalition. One of the most racist people and groups on earth.

LocalTownie wrote on August 03, 2012 at 12:08 pm

I didn't even know there WAS a chick-fil-a in town, interesting.

illini_hugger wrote on August 02, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Mark Taylor's posts are hilarious! I always look for him in the comments section. People who don't get it are giving themselves away...

woopitydo wrote on August 02, 2012 at 1:08 pm

correction- Other's. Thanks... but the founder of wiki states to not rely on wiki for accurate information and that link also states that "irregardless" is incorrect and uncommon :)

Spence wrote on August 02, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Profile Picture

I had a spicy chicken sandwich and waffle fries... delicious!  I wish Mr Cathy would build another Chick-Fil-A in C-U.  Homosexuals can't honestly expect everyone to bend to their irrational demand to accept their behavior.  They need to stop saying they were born homosexual, there is absolutely no scientific proof of that. I too support traditional marriage only.... that certainly doesn't make me a hater or a bigot.  We're all entitled to judge a behavior as right or wrong. The petition written about accuses Chick-fil-A of "homophobic policies." That is simply not true, Chick-Fil-A doesn't dicriminate against homosexuals.... to say different is a complete fabrication.

Mark Taylor wrote on August 02, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Preach it brother man. I sure do remember when I chose to be hetero. When was it that you made your final decision...?

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Just when I think I'm sure....

Spence wrote on August 08, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Profile Picture

Profile Picture

Mark, That's an easy one... when I decided I wanted to get married and have children.... you do know a same-sex couple can't procreate... right?

 

Mark Taylor wrote on August 09, 2012 at 9:08 am

Ah, okay. So you finally decided to become heterosexual just before you got married and had kids, probably sometime in your 20s?

Up until then, you just checked the "undecided" box. It's so cool that these things are conscious decisions and we can pinpoint exactly when we made those choices.

And congrats on your decision to become a heterosexual real American. I just don't understand why some people make the other choice.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on August 02, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Profile Picture

"We're all entitled to judge a behavior as right or wrong."

No, we aren't.

But yeah, those dang homosexuals and their "irrational demand" that we accept their existence.  It's so unfair of them.

I'm also glad that, after what I assume has been decades of exhaustive research on the issue on your part, you have concluded that there is no evidence that people can be born gay.  You have saved the rest of the world a lot of debate with your clearly well-founded certainty.

Nice Davis wrote on August 03, 2012 at 9:08 am

Homosexuality is not a choice--who would choose to live a lifestyle that invites such constant bigotry and discrimination? But even if it is a choice, who cares? Being LGBT is not a bad thing, and people should not suffer discrimination based on their sexual orientation whether they choose it or are born with it. The "choice" issue is a red herring introduced by right-wingers whose understanding of equal protection under the law is shaky at best.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on August 02, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Profile Picture

Another wedge controversy manufactured to distract the public.

You are not standing up for traditional families by eating at Chick Fil A.  You are just clogging your arteries.

You are not standing up for gay rights by boycotting Chick Fil A or trying to bully them out of town.  You are just patting yourself on your back for being such a responsible little social activist.

This Chick Fil A nonsense is another meaningless controversy of the week perpetuated by the media and by gullible ideologues who actually think this is a meaningful issue.  In a few weeks, we will all have forgotten about this nonsense and we will have moved on to the next meaningless controversy of the week.  Meanwhile, our financial system and our system of government continue to collapse upon themselves, looking ever more unsustainable and detached from the American people by the day...but good luck hearing about that on the news.

 

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm

It's not the media, it's an election year. Huckabee called for the support day with a quiet second from Palin. The conservatives are still looking for a good wedge issue that will stick. 

alabaster jones 71 wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Profile Picture

Right, it's only the conservatives that try to push wedge issues.  I forgot.  I guess that whole Buffett rule proposal (which would have funded the gov't for less than a week) was just a figment of my imagination.

And when either party tries to push a wedge issue, the news media is always right there to fuel them.  That's a lot easier for them than it is to cover substantial issues.  Just look at their coverage (or appalling lack thereof) of the LIBOR scandal.  Many of them were too busy covering Chick Fil A, and the personal life of the movie theater shooter, and Obamaromney's latest platitudes and talking points, to even mention the LIBOR story once.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/13/516460/libor-media-coverage-...

 

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm

I didn't mean to imply it was just the conservatives. This was hardly a story until Huckabee decided the chicken needed defending. Or maybe he's hoping to get picked for the V.P. slot. He's drawing a lot of attention to himself. And nobody is talking about Romney's taxes or free birth control anymore. So he did do a good job of taking control of the media.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on August 02, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Profile Picture

I apologize for making assumptions.

However, I seem to remember plenty of coverage about this topic before Huckabee chimed in.  And I really doubt that Huck is even under consideration by the Romney folks.  Almost everyone "who knows" seems to think it will be either Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty.  They are apparently dead set on avoiding a Palin situation and they are fixing to pick a bland, inoffensive, soft-spoken VP nominee, who will not make any headlines for better or for worse.

I would also say sorry everyone for going off-topic, but since the topic in question is a meaningless distraction, I guess I'm not sorry after all.

natebaux wrote on August 03, 2012 at 7:08 am

well, if it WAS mentioned, people might start to realize that the theft is rampant, widespread, and virtually unlimited. its like, pre-theft, and has touched the lives of anything with a pulse, down to the last amazon rainforest tribe.

Sid Saltfork wrote on August 03, 2012 at 10:08 am

alabaster;  Well stated comment.  People are paying attention to the mole hill instead of the mountain.

trent_il wrote on August 02, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Oh, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with him. And, he certainly has a right to comment. I stand by my assessment of those comments, though.

nomad wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Profile Picture

I have a question directed to the University of Illinois and its security policies. If an individual or a group decided to protest the Illini Union bowling alley becuse they viewed it to be an usafe sport, or a proffesor lecturing in a hall because of something he said would the U of I security or the University administartion let it just happen? No. So why was it okay to let a group of people  block and impact  a business? Why was it okay to effectivly let them steal money from this company? Why did they have to close because the university security did not do its job? Before we get wrapped up in pointing fingers think about the impacts of people so full of themselves and trying to thrust their agenda upon the world. What about the poor employees who need their jobs to pay rent, feed their familes and buy the goods and services in the local community they think they are trying to protect. 

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm

As long as protests are not violent they don't stop them. The job of the security is to keep everyone safe, that's both sides, and allow an open dialogue to take place. Not having been there I can't say why the business closed. But I have seen first-hand other protests where activities were impacted. They don't just have security come in and haul people off. For one thing it's really bad publicity. For another people can get hurt, including the security people or innocent bystanders. 

nomad wrote on August 02, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Profile Picture

I commented because a friend ( neutral to the issue, as i am trying to be) called and said they closed becuse the protesters were getting in the way and in the face of people trying to eat. Nobody was hurt physically hurt or probably touched, but how many ad's do we see on tv about verbal abuse  and are we not shocked when we hear about it being done.  All I am saying is that the U of I should have stepped in and asked the protestors to kindly step back a few feet. Its obvious they don't want to get involved in this political hot potatao. I would bet thought that people tried to Boycot the mcdonald  becuse of their view of the items offered on the menu, to the point of them having to shut down things would be much different. If i were the owner of that resturant I would demand that the Illini union refund me in my rent the revenue i lost having to close. If i was an employee I would find an attorney to locate the protest organizer and do a class action suit for personal suffering and loss of wages.

rsp wrote on August 02, 2012 at 11:08 pm

There wouldn't be any standing. I'll bet there wasn't anyone in charge of the protesters and the store just closed out of fear. Big mistake. Security would have required people to stay civil and not to block access because that creates a fire hazard. They probably couldn't tell who was a customer and who was a protester and gave up. Protesters will see that as a win. If they do it again they will know they can intimidate the staff just by showing up. All they have to do is fill the place and sit down. 

vcponsardin wrote on August 03, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Profile Picture

So when Mr. Cathy mentions the "biblical definition of marriage," I assume he includes plural marriage?

Genesis 25:6--But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had...

Genesis 26:34--Esau... took to wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Exodus 21:10--If he taketh another wife...

Deuteronomy 21:15--If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated...

Judges 8:30--And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Samuel 1:1-2--Elhanah had two wives...

2 Samuel 12:7-8--Thus saith the LORD God of Israel... I give thee.. thy master's wives...

1 Chronicles 4:5--Ashur... had two wives and threescore concubines.

2 Chronicles 13:21--Abijah waxed mightily and married fourteen wives...

 

Yeah, I like the Biblical definition of marriage...  But do you think Mr. Cathy would approve?

 

 

 

 

raw5463 wrote on August 03, 2012 at 1:08 pm

But aren't those all about men who are marrying women?    Just had to ask....:)    Not trying to be a pain.   These forums, in my opinion, never ever get anywhere.   People will always have their own opinion, and they should be able to, whether it is to the right OR to the left. 

vcponsardin wrote on August 03, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Profile Picture

I see... plural marriage is OK as long as it's heterosexual.  And as long as it's men who marry as many women they can, but not women having as many husbands as they want...  I get it.  Great definition of Biblical marriage.  Thanks.  Helps a lot.  Really clarifies the argument.

Sid Saltfork wrote on August 03, 2012 at 5:08 pm

I am doing good to have only one wife, and two kids; and afford them.  There is no way that I could afford a second wife; let alone fourteen wives!  How would I ever watch the Bears games?  Does any place have delivery for chicken sandwiches?  How many wives does Mitt Romney have?  It would show on his IRS deductions if he would release them.  

ClearVision wrote on August 07, 2012 at 2:08 pm

I see you do very much understand the biblical concept of marriage. After all, it's you, the man of the house, who would have to "afford" additional wives. No chance at all that they would pull their own weight, or-- god forbid-- be in a position to "afford" you.

Can I get an Amen?

Or maybe a "WOO HOO TEA PARTY!"

OwlCreekObserver wrote on August 03, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Lots of chatter from the kiddies here accusing the CFA folks of sending money to so-called "hate groups."  I doubt that most of you have any idea what hatred actually looks like.  Hint:  Hatred isn't someone disagreeing with you.  Shocking, but true.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on August 04, 2012 at 5:08 am
Profile Picture

Yeah, I wouldn't call them "hate groups," technically, but they are groups populated by hateful people.  Hateful people who think they were put on earth by God to impose their beliefs on others.  But yes, the term "hate group" should be reserved for groups like Neo-Nazis or the Klan.

STM wrote on August 06, 2012 at 11:08 am

Where was all this concern for free speech when the Dixie Chicks were being boycotted?

Sheesh!

thorx wrote on August 08, 2012 at 4:08 pm

To Mr. Cathy,  since you are against Gay Marriage you must not recognize Gay Rights and don't want gays to be happy.  If you don't want gays to be happy, you must not like gays.  If you don't like gays you must not want there to be more gays.  So you should stop believing in traditional marriage because that's who's having all the gay babies.

Spence wrote on August 08, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Profile Picture

That's an easy one... when I decided I wanted to get married and have children.... you do know a same-sex couple can't procreate... right?

Mark Taylor wrote on August 08, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Ah, okay. So you finally decided to become heterosexual just before you got married and had kids, probably sometime in your 20s?

Up until then, you just checked the "undecided" box. It's so cool that these things are conscious decisions and we can pinpoint exactly when we made those choices.

And congrats on your decision to become a heterosexual real American. I just don't understand why some people make the other choice.

necmanea wrote on August 09, 2012 at 3:08 am

One of the mistakes people make about what the Bible says is they will misunderstand that reporting what things were like are definitions of what they should be. Just because the Bible reports that people had multiple partners (14 wives say) does not mean it advocates that as a proper life style. It simply reports that that was the way things were as it reports on so many things that were going on then. It shows people with faults and weaknesses and sins and how they recieved either redemtion or condemnation.