Sometimes I speak too soon. Sometimes I speak from ignorance. Sometimes I do both at the same time and create blog posts like the one I wrote last week about Chick-Fil-A. My ignorance was marked by misspelling Chick-Fil-A throughout the entire article. Somebody suggested that I did it to be funny but nope. I did it because I’m guilty of the same stupidity I’m always noticing in you. My hasty ignorance also riled up some people who are no longer fans of the restaurant.
Last week’s article proclaimed that “Christians can still support Chick-Fil-A (misspelled of course)”. I explained how that could be possible and unintentionally slighted a bunch of people who are enormously annoyed by the franchise’s decision to stop donating money to the Salvation Army. I won’t repeat the article and I’m not retracting anything in it. I stand by what I said in the article but I think another article (this one) is needed to express my new perspective. It is possible to hold two (or more) different perspectives simultaneously. If you’re angry with Chick-Fil-A, this is to let you know I sympathize.
My buddy, Al Serhal, made this comment about my previous article:
“Chick-fil-A backed down from a moral fight that many of us got drawn in to and left us standing there like fools with chicken sandwiches in our hands. They surrendered. They are moral cowards.”
Me, being who I am and having sparred with Al in many conversations for many years, replied with some snark about Chick-Fil-A not wrapping their sandwiches in rainbow paper. That’s pretty much where it ended except that I couldn’t stop thinking about the phrase, “They surrendered.”
Then my daughter told me she was surprised that I had written an article defending Chik-Fil-A. She expected me to be more critical. She thought I would be disappointed that they had “caved” to LGBT pressure. Then, I started seeing articles about how Chick-Fil-A had “caved” to LGBT pressure and that caused me to experience sympathy for you ex-fans of Chick-Fil-A. Much as it pains me to say this, I think your complaint is valid. My first article was too narrow.
The company is openly (proudly?) operating on Christian values. It makes perfect sense for Chick-Fil-A to support other Christian organizations. In fact, I could make the case that Christians are required by scripture to support Christians. The screeching LGBT mob accusing the Salvation Army of “hating gay people” should be ignored. It is a ridiculous charge with no evidence to support it. Chick-Fil-A’s decision to stop giving money to the Salvation Army has validated the accusations of “hatred”. They have essentially agreed with the mob that the Salvation Army is bad. This is betrayal, plain and simple.
So, if your conscience is telling you to stop eating at Chick-Fil-A, you have my full support in that decision. My previous article suggested that it’s not a big deal. That’s not my call. It’s your call. I just want you to know I understand where you’re coming from and I think your position is valid.*
*If your position is, “John, I don’t need your support and you’re a condescending jerk for suggesting you have the power to validate my position,” that’s valid as well.
8 Responses
As a recent first time recipient of food made by Chick-Fil-A, I’d be hard pressed to give up frosted lemonade no matter their political stance if the franchise was available in Australia.
https://rmcalvary.org/messages/luke-10-ken-graves-11-17-19
This is probably a better link
To John Branyan from Pkarlgh https://castbox.fm/vb/204664891
Guest Speaker at our Church
There are Pastor of Truth
They did not cave. Their major donation contracts (yes, that’s a thing, apparently) expired. Instead of renewing them, they decided to donate to more local organizations. They are still donating to organizations that make the LBGTQXYZ crowd unhappy.
How do LGBT lobby groups feel about Covenant House?
This can be difficult to establish as LGBT lobby groups don’t always speak with one voice. A nun friend of mine ran a Covenant House in Canada, and there were quite a few individual gays (not groups) that thought CH was bad for the young gay kids it takes in. But close questioning revealed that their issue was with the rules CH sets for minors in its care–many of whom have been sexually trafficked. The goal of their time of “sanctuary” at CH is to get them off the streets and help them get healthy along a number of dimensions. It seems pretty unreasonable to object to any organization, let alone a Catholic one, that expects young people to refrain from sexual acting out while they are in care. I haven’t heard any complaints about Covenant Houses in the US.
Covenant House in the US does have a presence in gay pride parades. I have no information on the extent to which traditional Catholic teaching about gay sex is presented to the young people. In brief, the Catholic position is that while the orientation is disordered rather than sinful, acting upon the orientation is sinful. Gay Catholics are urged to live celibate lives. I tend to think that if this were actually being taught, there might be more complaints from gay groups.
The interesting part is that the Salvation Army has bent over backward becoming more “gay friendly.” They have removed from their website the statement of belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. They operate a trans shelter in Las Vegas because of the vulnerabilities of this group of people. They have a presence at the San Francisco gay pride. If Chick Fil A knew all this, I can’t understand why they excluded them. This is a link to the Salvation Army’s page on outreach to gays: https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/the-lgbtq-community-and-the-salvation-army/.
That’s a long answer, but I hope it helped.
One problem with the news media is that they are often more interested in being first than right. Because the news media is so difficult to sue, many reporters don’t care when they trash other people’s reputations, especially Conservatives.
Check out who the company is giving money to. If you don’t have a problem with the list, leave it at that.
https://www.chick-fil-a.com/About/Giving-Back
I don’t eat according to religious, political, or ideological identification (where would I eat, then?) So, as far as I’m concerned, even if the Chi(c)k-Fil-A folk were raging pagans who offered their chickens to idols, I would probably eat there (if the food is good, that is). But I probably wouldn’t invite a fellow believer to these places if it mattered to them (1 Cor.8:1-13).