Did the media even bother to have LGBT advocates on television to offer opposing points of view and put this controversy in perspective? Did they even try to point out the awful things that have occurred at the organizations that Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy supports? Did they ask Huckabee about the hypocrisy of complaining about this issue on the basis of “freedom” while denying same-sex couples the right to marry? And how about all those blue laws where fundies use their beliefs to suppress the activities of other Americans that don’t share their religious beliefs? What about a discussion of Chick-fil-A’s brand tanking and how this controversy will affect their long term image and profitability?
It is days like these when I understand why much of America has lost faith in the media. Sometimes they really drop the ball and embarrass the profession with dreadful, inferior, and shallow coverage.
On a positive note, these stories are not helpful to Chcik-fil-A’s reputation. They are now associated with the guy banging his Bible in the video and extremist politicians. This may come as a surprise, but many Americans will not purchase a Sarah Palin sandwich.
Last night’s lead-in to the evening news in Oklahoma City: “Thousands line up at Chick-fil-A to support freedom of speech.” Sadly, this is the tone taken across the country. Why were journalists afraid to speak about the true nature of the controversy. Honestly, much of the reporting I saw could have come straight from FOX News.
Hilarious!!! You guys are complaining because your Obamamatic lamestreamers in the media actually reported some REAL news and not the usual Left Wing TRIPE!
ROFLMAO
BTW…FYI Marriage is NOT a ‘right’. It requires a LICENSE, just like the PRIVILEGE to drive a car, or to practice edicine, or operate most businesses.
What you have just experienced by attacking the First Amendment protected RIGHT of FREE SPEECH,s the American Mainstream pushing back against your outlandish demands.
Outlandish demands- that Cathy stop financially supporting the “Kill the Gays” Bill in Uganda? yeah, pretty outlandish.
Anonymous – who gives the license to marry, the church or the state? Marriage is a civil institution. And who declared that marriage is a human right? The US Supreme Court.
By the way, news is not real news if it shows only the surface and doesn’t uncover the background information.
Wrong anonymous. The U.S. Supreme court ruled in Loving vs Virginia that marriage is a civil right. Your claim that gays desires to have the same rights you do is “outlandish” shows how severely twisted your mind is.
What if my religion, my bible, my god states that caucasians are inherantly evil and sinful and a disgrace and are not entitled to marriage because of who they are? This is how utterly sickening this is to me to see that people can support something so hateful, then have the nerve to project their hate onto their victims.
Diane Sawyer has always been dreadful, so no surprise.
But I think a big part of this problem is that most LGBT people only began speaking out against Chick Fil A AFTER Dan Cathy made his support for traditional marriage statement. This made it look like the target of our community was attacking Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech, rather than his company financing hate groups; and that is what the media ran with.
Grant it, one would expect reputable news outlets to dig a little further to see what this company is really about like David Badash (New Civil Rights Movement) did but unfortunately our news has become nothing but soundbites these days.
I have to say, I was really disappointed to see Rachel Maddow completely ignore this entire story. If anyone could have framed this story the way it should have been framed (focused on Chick Fil A’s donations to anti-gay hate groups & the consequences that this money has on LGBT people), Maddow was the one who could have done it best. Not because she’s one of us, but because she can drive home a point like nobody else can. Conservative pundits like Mike Huckabee have no problem not only dedicating time to issues that are personally important to them but also spearheading the entire Chick Fil A appreciation day while those on the left seem more concerned about about this issue not appealing to their non-gay audience.
Actually, it is a basic right. Just because it has been denied in many places, does not diminish that it is a right.
You really don’t understand freedom do you? I’d think you would have done just fine in Communist Russia.
“BTW…FYI Marriage is NOT a ‘right’. It requires a LICENSE, just like the PRIVILEGE to drive a car, or to practice edicine, or operate most businesses.”
::BUZZER::
WRONG ANSWER!!
The Supreme Court stated in the Loving v Virginia decision (the one on interracial marriage) that marriage is a “basic civil right.” A civil right that the Court takes so seriously that they even extended that right to people serving time in prison (I forget the name of the case).
If you want to make statements you would do well to do your homework first so as not to reveal for all the world to see what an idiot you are.
Anonymous~Too scared to provide your actual name? Bold to hide behind anonymity! Just like Cathey and the so~called “christians” hiding behind the loosely interpretted bible. This is a real story with real lives involved, and it’s about basic civil rights, not privileges for only some. We will all have the right to marry and carry on freely one day, and there will be nothing people like you or Dan Cathey will be able to do to stop us! This is a movement, and that’s what we’re doing…get in our way, and we’ll drive right over you.
I’ve been wondering myself why the entire point of this issue ISN’T discussed. And it’s true, pro marriage or equality advocates haven’t been asked anything about the deeper issue with Cathy.
The he’s really using the force of gov’t to promote his religious beliefs about marriage and other things.
A few mayors in less than a handful of cities, were ham handed and went about it the wrong way.
A BETTER strategy would have been to just expose Cathy as a hypocrite. As someone who profits from gay customers and the labors of token gay employees, but uses that profit to harm them in OTHER areas.
It would be better to analogize divestiture of South Africa because of apartheid, or examples of business owners profiting from a minority they vilify in civil law.
Even better, that marriage in Biblical societies allowed polygamy, rape, and treating women like property and servants. Domestic violence and abandonment was easily and highly condoned. And considering how prevalent it still is, Cathy doesn’t seem interested in strengthening laws against domestic violence, or adultery…or child abandonment.
I would have found a way to shame him and his supporters THAT way.
But yeah, this is NOT just about free speech and the free marketplace, because it sure as s**t hasn’t been free for gay folks.
It’s cost them dearly, and no Christian should get away with thinking that his religious beliefs deserve to manifest into civil discrimination.
Cathy was never harmed by gay couples marrying. Nobody was.
Guess we’ll have to show the difference between a GOOD Christian and a bad one.
@Anonymous: how could YOU and any of the other people be SO STUPID?!
A driver’s license is SKILLS based because a half ton car can KILL someone in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to drive.
There are no skills or morals tests to marry. THAT is why your comparison is apples to chainsaws.
DUH.
@ Regan DuCasse and Anonymous: If a marriage *did* require a skills test before the license, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and several other right-wing luminaries would have failed it.
@Kim: “This made it look like the target of our community was attacking Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech…”
Um, no. That would still be attacking what he said, not his right to say it. If that was all it was about, we’d still be right.
We’d be *exercising* the freedom of speech, not opposing it.
They said that, yes, but they were LYING (you can tell because they were saying something). Just like their definition of “religious freedom” is actually imposition on religious freedom and their definition of “infringing on religious freedom” is actually the expression of religious freedom.
To my knowledge, they haven’t actually called restricting the freedom of speech “the freedom of speech” yet, but I have to assume it’s coming.
I am a convicted felon. I spent years in a federal prison for attempted murder. I have one question that no one who supports the change of traditional marriage can answer, or will answer. When traditional marriage is gone will we be forced to allow adults to marry children; humans and animals. Please, I am not attempting to be insulting or stupid. I have seen others in prison speak freely of their desire to marry a child. Do they have civil rights as well? I think we all would agree that once any “tradition” is changed the courts allow pretty much anything under the stamp of a persons civil rights. I support traditional marriage because I fear that is what will happen; that every person who wants to marry something now taboo will come out of the wordwork wanting his or her civil rights as well. Please see my point and save the insults for others. This is an honest concern that many have but fear to speak out.
An “honest concern”? Only to people incapable of grasping the concept of MUTUAL CONSENT.
William Church says: “I have seen others in prison speak freely of their desire to marry a child.”
How fitting, because this is exactly where these folks will remain if they abuse children. No, marrying the adult person you love is not the same as marrying a child (abuse) or an animal (more abuse and not much interest). That’s like asking the question 150 years ago — if we break tradition and allow women to be equals, and not property, will people marry a llama or a kid next?
As you can see, that has not happened. Nor have such negative changes occurred in the many countries and 6 states where gay couples are already allowed to marry. So, this is not hypothetical, but established fact.
William, what you call “traditional marriage” is relatively recent. Centuries ago marriages were often arranged, many were polygamous, and the bride could be as young as she began her period; these marriages were performed in Christian and Jewish societies. Not to mention mixed-race marriage was made legal in the US less than 50 years ago.
William, why would “traditional marriage” be gone? It would be one consenting adult marrying another. Not too long ago “traditional marriage” was one man and many women. Women had not choice in who they married so right there we’ve already changed that by requiring the partners to consent.
As recently as 30 years ago I can remember people marrying 14 or 15 year olds here in America. It would seem that as a country we’re moving away from the idea of adults being able to marry children.
And really, William, gay couples being able to marry won’t prevent straight couples from marrying. Where would you get such an idea?
@William Church If same sex marriage passes it will not lead to people marrying children. There is very giant block to this, it is called consent. Children cannot give this, ergo, no marriage to a child would be legal.
There’s also documented psychological damage, I’m CPS could provide you with plenty of material.
As for your support of “traditional” marriage, I encourage you to read your bible and study the history of marriage. The whole idea of one man + one woman + love is still pretty new. For the majority of history, love was not a factor and the woman was chattel.
In fact here is a nice picture showing 8 different kinds of marriage in the bible http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible
I see a lot of HATE being thrown around in this forum, and it’s mostly coming from the supporters of gay rights. How sad.
“They hate us! We’ll show them! Let’s hate them back! Tell them they’re idiots! That’ll do it!”
I have a question … rather, a request. Can someone please point me to a website that cites Cathy actually giving money to a hate-group? The only news I can find is his statement that he supports standard marriage. I commend him for being honest (what … you want him to lie?). And I don’t feel right condemning him for having an opinion just because I disagree with it. But if he actually financially supports officially labeled “hate groups” that discriminate against and are even violent towards gays, that’s different and I have a problem with that. So … can you help me find this information?
@Lisa – do you REALLY believe people are using their real names here? They want to remain anonymous too. I’m just being honest about it.
And you’re being hateful. Stop the hate.
@Kogenta
Thanks for sharing that picture. of different kinds of marriages in the Bible. I have to wonder though, how does that support your point of view. None of them were “same-sex.”
Charlie, here is the information you requested – http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001
I think what folks need to remember that for the most part, the media is shallow and often times will not get a complex story like this right the first time out. The point is to keep it in the press and constantly remind people what Chick-Fil-A’s money supports. The media always comes around.