What does a chicken sandwich and a moral controversy have in common?
Under typical circumstances, not much.
Leave it up to the mainstream media and the liberal left, however, to find a way to bring the two together.
For those who are unaware, the southern chicken sandwich chain “stepped in it” by daring to express a belief in regards to traditional marriage.
For those who’ve never seen a Chick-Fil-A, it’s the restaurant advertised by cows with misspelled signs about eating more chicken:
So here’s the deal. Chick-fil-A’s foundation “WinShape” has donated some 2 million dollars to causes such as the Family Research Council and Exodus International, (among others) and when the media caught wind of this, all heck broke out. Nearly a week after the “story” initially broke, the storm is still raging.
Before I get into the default reaction of so many liberal media outlets, allow me to share with you certain policy statements from these two groups.
First, we’ll look at Exodus International. This group believes that homosexuality is not a genetic inheritance, but rather a choice. They believe that per Biblical teaching, homosexuality is a sin. They believe in counseling for this behavior.
Exodus International’s statement on the Criminalization of Homosexuality:
Exodus International believes that every human life, regardless of sexual orientation, is of inestimable and equal worth to God and that defending this principle is foundational in offering a Christian response to any issue. As such, Exodus International has not supported and will not support any legislation that deprives others of life and dignity based on their sexual orientation or the expression of such within the confines of a consensual adult relationship. We stand with all who are defending this basic, biblical tenet and remain committed to sharing the compassion, hope and life-giving grace and truth of Jesus Christ.
Finally, we stand with the LGBT community both in spirit, and when necessary, legally and physically, when violence rears it’s head in Uganda, Jamaica or anywhere else in the world.
For more information, see the Official Exodus Statement Regarding Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009.
Exodus International’s statement on Bullying:
Exodus International affirms that gay-identified individuals and those who struggle with same-sex attraction are persons for whom Jesus Christ died and loves equally. Therefore, we strongly oppose bullying, name calling and acts of aggression against any individual or group of individuals for any reason. These actions have no place in our society and we must, instead, affirm behavior that validates the personal worth and dignity God bestows upon every human being.
In addition, every individual deserves equal protection and every offender should receive equal punishment. We call upon other organizations concerned with preserving the essential equality of all individuals to exhibit impartiality in their policies, rather than singling out some for special treatment
Now, we’ll look at the Family Research Council, an organization focused on the preservation of marriage and the family as “the foundation of civilization” While they strongly oppose a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual relationships, the FRC does not push for legislation banning the practice of homosexuality. Whatever their organization’s beliefs regarding the ills of homosexual relationships may be, what they have pushed for within the realm of government is simply an allowance that marriage remain defined as it has historically been, and that steps be taken to protect it as such:
Attempts to join two men or two women in “marriage” constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures.
Ah yes. These sound like the words of KKK leaders themselves. . . .complete with a burning cross in there somewhere, I’m sure.
Pardon my sarcasm for a moment, but in light of researching these two organizations and then reading the Huffington Post (among other places) in which they are referred to as “hate groups” I couldn’t help but draw attention to the absolute absurdity of such comments.
What’s even more interesting still is that while neither of these groups (nor Chick-fil-A!) advocate violence towards homosexuals, intimidation and/or bullying of homosexuals, banning of homosexual individuals from society. . . the liberal media and the American Left seem to find it perfectly prudent to intimidate and attempt to ban to the Chick-fil-A chain for using ITS money as IT pleases.
As reported by TheBlaze.com, “following the comments Jim Henson co. pulled their toys from Chick-Fil-A’s kids meals, a Chicago alderman with the support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pledged to block plans to build a restaurant in the city’s Northwest Side, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent a heated letter to Cathy stating that allowing the chain to spread to his city ‘would be an insult.‘”
Believe me, readers- the media would have a case if Chick-fil-A or the groups it supports advocated the mistreatment of homosexual persons. This is not, however, the case- and to paint it as such is journalistic malpractice on steroids. Leadership within government aught to be ashamed for the blatant intolerance displayed by individuals such as Mayor Rahm Emanuel who have pledged to block the practice of free enterprise simply because they don’t like what a group has to say.
Moreover, even worse than the verbal abuse that Chick-fil-A and pro-marriage advocacy groups have had to endure since the inception of this “controversy,” is the very real danger that those of us who hold certain moral convictions could easily be banned from doing so if journalism and public leadership continue in this fashion. Think that’s too far-fetched? When a media outlet is allowed to label an entity a “hate group” which publicly states that they “strongly oppose bullying, name calling and acts of aggression against any individual or group of individuals for any reason”. . . we’ve got a problem.
Much like the Sesame Street segment in which children were asked to identify which “one of these is not like the other,” I ask you today- which side is exemplifying tolerance? Which has the track record for tolerance? For tolerance, you see, does not exist simply when there’s no one else around to disagree; rather it exists in spite of disagreement. In this case, as Exodus International so aptly displayed in the aforementioned statements, it is to maintain a love and respect for fellow man, even when one disagrees wholeheartedly with that person’s personal beliefs.
So readers, if you support Chick-fil-A’s right to support these traditional values groups without fear of discrimination or mistreatment, get out there tomorrow and EAT MOR CHIKIN!