MERGED: Chick-fil-A

[CopticChristian]

Politely?

Tracer,

You post you are Catholic. I must assume you have read the Catechism. The OHCAC teaches and I accept the following.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. **

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Homosexual acts are disordered. It would be my genuine and honest opinion that homosexual same sex marriage would be considered disordered. With all due respect and with the utmost concern for whatever your understanding may be, I sincerely disagree with any opinion you may offer in regards to thinking or teaching that may be contrary. Shall we agree that your position does not reflect the teaching of the OHCAC and represents thinking that is contrary to what is expected of a practicing Catholic.

Kind sir or Madam as the case may be may I ask you to reconsider your position in light of the teachings of the OHCAC that you state you ascribe to.

Is that polite enough?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Suppose Chick-fil-A implemented a policy of not serving *married *same-sex couples, on the grounds that doing so would be a tacit endorsement of SSM. Should Chick-fil-A be allowed to discriminate against them?

Same sex couples should not be having sex in a restaurant. If they do, then they should not be served, along with the no shirt no shoes people.

 

[buffalo]

I think so, at least from my perspective.

They are “Closed on Sunday” but are more than happy to have crews of Mexicans laying floor tiles, cleaning grease traps, installing new roofs and restripeing parking lots on Sunday.

Although they themselves might not work, they certainly are not adverse to paying others to do hard manual labor on Sunday for their own benefit.

-Tim-

Wow - what a bogus attempt to undermine what he is trying to accomplish. More companies should close on Sunday.

And by the way - many of these contractors call there own hours. Every Sunday I see local lawn care guys cutting lawns.

 

[andrewstx]

I have said, and I am resaying there are other cites on reconstructionism, domionionism, the chalcedon foundation that are anti-abortion and very conservative.

Why not check out some of those cites instead of focussing on the two that Coptic found?

Most reconstructionists are actually quite conservative and Calvinist, do a search for Rushdoony, unless you just don’t really want to find the truth.

 

[april32010]

I have said, and I am resaying there are other cites on reconstructionism, domionionism, the chalcedon foundation that are anti-abortion and very conservative.

Why not check out some of those cites instead of focussing on the two that Coptic found?

Most reconstructionists are actually quite conservative and Calvinist, do a search for Rushdoony, unless you just don’t really want to find the truth.

what are you taiking about?

 

[CopticChristian]

what are you taiking about?

Dominionism.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Sure. They actually had that policy several years ago.

They’re not refusing service to people merely because they’re gay in hypothetical land. They’re refusing to serve people who publicly recognize a certain type of union as a marriage. They have every right to refuse service.

Honestly, if they refused to serve to straight couples that’s their right, but I doubt they’ll get much business.

No. They don’t. Cathy’s fight would be in the legislature, or by way of a constitutional amendment. But most state anti-discrimination laws would find him liable for refusing to serve someone based upon their sexual orientation.

I’m no fan of same sex marriage. But refusing service to a person based on their sexual orientation is not only a violation of civil law, it is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No. They don’t. Cathy’s fight would be in the legislature, or by way of a constitutional amendment. But most state anti-discrimination laws would find him liable for refusing to serve someone based upon their sexual orientation.

I’m no fan of same sex marriage. But refusing service to a person based on their sexual orientation is not only a violation of civil law, it is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Robert

I’m legitimately confused

1. No they don’t what?
2. Where is it codified into law that you can’t refuse service based on sexual orientation?
3. I might have been wrong about that anyway. But today, now, they’re refusing people who publicly support same-sex marriage. They’re not refusing service to homosexuals.
4. How is it contrary to the teaching of the Church? Theoretically, we’re not leaving poor, starving homosexuals to die in the streets. We’re refusing people who publicly support same-sex marriage service in a fast-food restaurant.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I’m legitimately confused

Understandable. It’s a complicated mess.

1) No they don’t what?

Have the right to discriminate against customers based upon their sexual orientation.

[qutoe=Marc Anthony]2) Where is it codified into law that you can’t refuse service based on sexual orientation?In California, the laws against discrimination in providing services to the public are codified in several places. The Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically Civil Code sec. 51(b) states that, “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kinds whatsoever.”

3) I might have been wrong about that anyway. But today, now, they’re refusing people who publicly support same-sex marriage. They’re not refusing service to homosexuals.

I don’t think Chick-Fil-A is refusing service to anyone. The issue is that the owner of the company personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman as described in the bible, and supports organizations that support that understanding. I think it’s wrong to suggest that he is doing anything wrong by acting on his belief.

4) How is it contrary to the teaching of the Church? Theoretically, we’re not leaving poor, starving homosexuals to die in the streets. We’re refusing people who publicly support same-sex marriage service in a fast-food restaurant.

The Church teaches that homosexual persons, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC 2358)

It’s not that don’t agree with Cathy’s conclusion that marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay as such. All I’m saying is that it would be wrong for a business to discriminate against someone based upon their sexual orientation.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Understandable. It’s a complicated mess.

You’re telling me

Have the right to discriminate against customers based upon their sexual orientation.

Good point, but you only gave the law for one state. what about the majority?

I don’t think Chick-Fil-A is refusing service to anyone. The issue is that the owner of the company personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman as described in the bible, and supports organizations that support that understanding. I think it’s wrong to suggest that he is doing anything wrong by acting on his belief.

All right

The Church teaches that homosexual persons, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC 2358)

It’s not that don’t agree with Cathy’s conclusion that marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay as such. All I’m saying is that it would be wrong for a business to discriminate against someone based upon their sexual orientation.

Peace,
Robert

But he wouldn’t be discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. He’d be refusing service to people who publicly support same-sex marriage.

 

[lutherlic]

Just to be clear…

The discussion on what is legal or moral to discriminate might confuse people in this Chick-fil -A thread as to their actual policies and practices.

Chick-fil-A does not discriminate in the hiring of employees or serving of customers based on their sexuality. Nor do they discriminate based upon support or opposition to sexual “lifestyles”. Reports to the contrary are fabricated lies to tarnish them and lack any factual basis. If you know anyone who owns or has worked at a Chick-fil-A – just ask.

While they are not Catholic, we would describe their position as respecting the innate human dignity of every person. Here is exactly what Dan Cathay, their president, COO and son of the founder said that so outraged the intolerant, radical homosexual lobby:

"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 operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. 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.”