Obama Administration Ignoring Religious Discrimination Against Chick-Fil-A

Today’s Courier Herald Column:

Until recently, the most controversial thing about the Chick-Fil-A Corporation is that their highly addictive food isn’t available on Sundays.  After creating the perfect chicken biscuit it just doesn’t seem right that they do not make it available on a Sunday morning.

Founder Truett Cathy has been quite resolute about his company’s operation since its founding, and there are guiding principles to which he will not yield.  There are no sales on Sunday because it is to be a day of rest.  Some have argued that not opening on Sundays has cost the company billions.  Others believe it demonstrates a commitment to values which makes customers return again and again.

The Cathy family which owns the privately held Chick-Fil-A Corporation extends those values in other ways.  They have long been a supporter of children’s charities, operating foster care operations and being a large benefactor of Rome Georgia’s Berry College through their affiliated WinShape Foundation.

Chick-Fil-A has also had a deep commitment to higher education, offering scholarships to those who are employed in their stores.   Since 1973, Chick-Fil-A has made their employees eligible to win tuition grants, ranging from $1,000 to $32,000. Part of the values embodied by the company has been the recognition of their primary labor force includes those who are not just cheap labor, but those still developing in their personal and career foundations.

Despite Chick-Fil-A’s history of supporting students and higher education in general, there is a growing movement to have Chick-Fil-A banned from college campuses.  Some activists have labeled Chick-Fil-A as being “anti-gay”, and thus believe they should not be allowed to operate campus concessions because they don’t respect diversity.

Northeastern University is the most recent college to rescind an offer for Chick-Fil-A to open, despite the chain being among the top of those requested in a student survey.  The evidence that Northeastern used to determine that Chick-Fil-A was “anti-gay” were contributions to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, The National Christian Foundation, and the Marriage and Legacy Fund- all organizations with Christian ties.

Chick-Fil-A gave a statement to the Boston Globe, saying “The most important thing we need to confirm is that we are not anti-anybody and Chick-fil-A has no agenda, policy or position against anyone as some reports continue to represent. Here’s the clarification and correction. Chick-fil-A has been scrutinized of late about our charitable giving, specifically through our WinShape Foundation, and whether or not we have some hidden political agenda. We don’t. Our agenda is simple: to graciously serve great food and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A. This is the reason why we were initially invited to the campus.”

Despite the lack of any evidence of Chick-Fil-A’s discrimination against homosexuals, the line being advanced by activists is represented in opinions such as that written by Iowa State University Assistant Professor Warren J. Blumenfield.  He asks in the Huffington Post, “While private companies like Chick-Fil-A most certainly and clearly have the right to support organizations and causes of their choice, should public tax-supported institutions such as universities maintain connections with those companies that expressly violate campus non-discrimination policies?”

As such, he invokes the proper protective mechanism but for the wrong reason.  The civil rights act prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, age, sex, religion, or national origin.  Note that religion is specifically included, but sexual orientation is not.  Chick-Fil-A is specifically being discriminated against because of its Christian ties, with no evidence whatsoever that the chain discriminates against homosexuals.

There are clear and admitted violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being committed by Northeastern University.  Chick-Fil-A is being blocked from the opportunity to sell their products solely on the basis of religion.  Though thinly veiled, the justification used by the university makes this a fact that is not in dispute.

As such, it is the duty and responsibility of the Justice Department to sue Northeastern University to defend Chick-Fil-A from the open hostility they are facing because of the way they choose to distribute charitable giving.  The Obama administration currently remains silent on this issue.

Chick-Fil-A has seen calls for boycotts over the years because of these same donations.  They generally have not gathered momentum because gay current and former Chick-Fil-A employees have come forward speaking of friendly working environments and being accepted in the workplace.

Social conservatives well overplayed the issue of religious charities being forced to provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans, turning the issue into a certain electoral loser.  They would be well advised to not allow this issue into one of anti-homosexuality, but one of active and declared religious discrimination.

As Assistant Professor Blumenfield points out, there is a federal role here.  Private Northeastern University receives federal funds.  If the civil rights act is to have actual meaning, it must be fairly and equally enforced.  As of now, this is not the case.  And this must change.


  1. GAPolitico says:

    In 2009, CFA donated
    Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
    Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
    National Christian Foundation: $240,000
    Focus On The Family: $12,500
    Eagle Forum: $5,000
    Exodus International: $1,000
    Family Research Council: $1,000

    They also have canceled CFA Sponsored Scholarships once they find out an employee is LGBT. I have had a friend this has happened to.

    You can also read other experiences here: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/if-youre-eating-chick-fil-a-youre-eating-anti-gay.html

    Charlie, you can write what you want and CFA can do what they want – but let’s not kid ourselves, they are anti-Gay. If no lawsuit has been brought, it speaks to the weak anti-LGBT discrimination laws in our country, not the absence of discrimination.

    • Charlie says:

      I’m not kididng myself. Read the reasoning given by Northeastern. They specifically equated faith based groups to being anti-gay. That’s not evidence of discrimination against sexual orientation (which isn’t in the Civil Rights Act, by the way), but is evidence of religious discrimination, which is very specifically included in the Civil Rights Act.

      • Hardly says:

        Charlie, when I show you a list of companies that Northeastern does business with that donate to non-gay-bashing religious organizations, will you admit you’re kidding yourself? (Of course not.)

        But hey, you guys wanted this absurd culture war, so…bon appetite!

        • SallyForth says:

          Guess I’ve gotta step in here and defend Charlie – I presently have a family member working at Chik-Fil-A and get an ear full of all their teenage scuttlebutt. They and all their fellow CFA employees love working there due to the Christian atmosphere, which extends to gay employees as well. There is no “gay bashing” and no culture war going on – just fun and laughter whomping up lots of delicious chicken sandwiches and great iced tea! Trying to make something out of nothing seems to be a full-time occupation for some folks.

          We do have freedom of religion in the U.S. and not only Mr. Cathy but every American has the right to spend their money however they wish and to contribute to whatever religious organizations they wish. Do these same trouble makers scrutinize all the charitable donations of every other company that does business on their campus? Being a Christian does not automatically equate to being anti-gay – everybody needs to just lighten up on this thing and let those kids have a Chik-Fil-A if they want it!

  2. GAPolitico says:

    NorthWestern is a private school. I have long defended Berry College saying they have a right to kick out gay students (as they have before) because they were private, though I disagree with their decision. In the same logic, NorthWestern has the right to exclude who they want.

    Why do you want big government coming in and telling private entities what they can and cannot do?

    • Charlie says:

      Again, it’s Northeastern, not Northwestern. They’re still private, but they receive federal funds. You know very well that there are requirements of organizations that receive federal funds, and violating the civil rights act is not allowed.

      The civil rights act prohibits discrimination based on religion. That is not an arguable fact. Northeastern University used donations to faith-based organizations as their sole proxy for determining that Chick-Fil-A should be banned from campus. This is also not in dispute. It is also a clear violation of the civil rights act.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        I think the argument from Northeastern, flimsy as it is, is that these ‘faith’ organizations that CFA donates to are – in the opinion of Northeastern – anti-gay, and therefore guilt by association.

        Not saying it’s a correct or legal position, but I think that’s what the school is getting at.

  3. Steve says:

    I don’t know of accusations of discrimination by Chick-Fil-A against its employees. (I can’t imagine a gay person applying for a job at Chick-Fil-A in the first place.) I believe the gist of people’s complaints are that:

    [1] Chick-Fil-A has, on multiple occasions, made five and six-figure donations to organizations whose primary purpose is political advocacy against non-heterosexuals.

    [2] The owners of Chick-Fil-A, S. Truett Cathy and family, are also the owners of the WinShape Foundation. That organization is funded by Chick-Fil-A profits, and regularly makes donations in the *millions* of dollars to organizations such as the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund… whose sole purpose is working against civil rights for gays.

    If you would like to argue that the restaurant abides by the letter of the law in their employment practices, then I don’t know how much argument you’ll get. However, it is ridiculous to claim that this is not an anti-gay enterprise.

    Chick-Fil-A is not being discriminated against because it is “Christian”. If that were the case, there were are the protests against Hobby Lobby and other such companies that wear faith on their sleeves? It is discriminated against because it is “anti-gay”, period. Your argument presupposes that “Christian” and “anti-gay” are one and the same… which is quite possibly the most dangerously stupid thing you have ever posted to Peach Pundit.

    • GAPolitico says:

      CFA discriminates against gay students – the pull scholarships from gay students after they have been awarded. THAT IS DISCRIMINATION!

      • Charlie says:

        1) no evidence has been presented as such, nor was any cited in Northeastern’s decision

        2) None of that violates the civil rights act; banning an orgainzation from campus because of their donations to faith based organizations does.

        • Steve says:

          By your own quotes, Northeastern did not cite donations to “faith based” organizations. They cited donations to “anti-gay” organizations. When religion and civil rights overlap in an organization’s activity, religion is not a magic wand that trumps the bad in all circumstances.

          To demonstrate, imagine that a Muslim-owned restaurant and its owners donated money to organizations calling for Sharia law in U.S. municipalities. Emory decides they don’t want this restaurant on campus. Does anyone protest or cite the Civil Rights Act then?

          (well, actually the Left probably would… but the hypocrisy and flip-floppiness of all you partisan types is a different discussion)

          To claim that this is discrimination against Christianity is to claim that Christianity is anti-gay. There are millions of Americans in less-fundamentalist congregations who would dispute that. Quite frankly, I don’t honestly believe that you even buy this crap yourself. I think you post so many moderate and reasonable-sounding articles, you have to post the occasional howler in order to keep up your “cred” with certain elements you hang with.

    • ConservativeCaucus says:

      “regularly makes donations in the *millions* of dollars to organizations such as the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund… whose sole purpose is working against civil rights for gays.”

      “It is discriminated against because it is “anti-gay”, period.”

      These two statements are common sleight of hand. Advocating for traditional marriage is not “working against civil rights for gays,” nor is it “anti-gay.” Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been defined as being between men and women. To my knowledge, no great moral thinker prior to this era has ever advocated for changing the definition of marriage. Now it may be possible that Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, and the Enlightenment folks were all wrong in not advocating for it, but believing that culture should define marriage as between a man and a woman is somehow ant-gay strikes me as over the top.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        Newsflash people: the institution of marriage is already dead, and it’s not gays and lesbians that killed it. (citation: this is actually a Boortz opinion I’m agreeing with)

        One only has to point to Kim Kardashian’s recent nuptials to see a prime example of the people responsible for killing the institution of marriage.

        • Calypso says:

          I find it laughable that some folks feel that both their heterosexual marriage and their faith are so threatened by gay marriage and/or secular political decisions.

          If your marriage and faith are so weak that you need the force of law to prop them up, then it’s over man, it’s over. Let it go.

          Just like those folks feverishly trying to produce ‘scientific evidence’ to support their faith/belief system. When you resort to trying to give credence to your faith with twisted and erroneous ‘scientific evidence’ then it ceases to be ‘faith’.

          • bgsmallz says:

            Why would government ever encroach upon religious freedom? That’s never happened. Ever. In the history of ever. Seriously, never ever ever ever happened. Not once. Not in our lifetime. Not in America. Not once. Those ‘folks’ are so stupid worrying about government encroachment into their religious practices. Just stupidity over fake hypotheticals. Weaklings!!! Folks have always been able to practice religion freely without worrying about secular political decisions. Never had to worry. Ever. Never. EVER. They’ve never needed the force of law to protect them from persecution for practicing beliefs. Ever. In the history of time. Ever. Ever. Never. Not once.

            • Calypso says:

              It is obvious that you are vehemently trying to make your point, I’m just unclear as to what it may be.

          • ConservativeCaucus says:

            I do not contend that an individual’s marriage is threatened by two people of the same sex getting married. The point that I am making is that throughout all of recorded human history, including societies that were very accepting of homosexual behavior (think ancient Greece), societies and moral thinkers have all agreed that marriage is between male and female.

            The implication is often that if you oppose same sex marriage, then you are a bigot. But no major thinker or moral philosopher before now has advocated for redefining marriage. To be intellectually honest would be to say that proponents of same sex marriage are the ones promoting a radical (Merriam-Webster: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions) idea. Perhaps everyone before now had it wrong, but it is over the top to refer to those who hold a belief that has been held for all of human history as anti-gay or bigoted.

            • Calypso says:

              In the eyes of the law, a marriage should be viewed as nothing more than a contract between two consenting adults of legal age; no different than if I bought your home and we both signed a valid and binding contract. If one of us broke the contract, we could address the issue in court. In this instance, whether you and I are of the same sex or not is immaterial. In fact, that is substantially the way the law addresses heterosexual marriages currently; as a contract between two parties.

              In the eyes of a religious institution, a marriage should be defined by whatever dogma to which that institution subscribes. If the Southern Baptist Convention chooses not to sanction a secular same-sex marriage, it is their perogative to do so. But the SBC not recognizing such a union should hold no sway over all other aspects and benefits of the secular marriage.

              Conversely, if the couple chose a different religion or denomination to recognize their secular marriage and it also became a religious marriage, well, I think that’s fine and dandy.

        • NoTeabagging says:

          Ditto: Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, JFK…
          need anymore?

          • CobbGOPer says:

            You’re right, I totally forgot all the political examples, I was focused on the pop culture examples.

  4. Jane says:

    Private schools have a right to do business with whoever they want. Just ask L;ester Maddox.

  5. SingingLawyer says:

    The Civil Rights Act protects individuals, not corporations, against discrimination. There is no such thing as a “Christian” company or a “Male” company or a “Hispanic” company recognized under the law that would be entitled to protection under the CRA. I think Chick-Fil-A is yummy but I don’t see any legal basis under which the Obama administration could intervene in this situation. And why would you want them to have that authority?

    • Max Power says:

      Bingo, I was wondering if anyone was going to catch this little flaw in Charlie’s post.

    • Sarawara says:

      Also, many people do not know that Massachusetts has a pretty strong state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, services, and education. So, arguably, Northeastern has a legal obligation to avoid bringing onto campus any businesses that are seen as discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

      • Gary Cooper says:

        But that is Charlie’s argument. There is no evidence whatsoever that Chick-Fil-A discriminates any of it’s employees on the basis of sexual orientation. And as Charlie has mentioned, Northeastern is not banning Chick-Fil-A for discriminating against employees or customers based on their sexual orientation. They are banning them because of groups/charities that they are donating too.

        • Sarawara says:

          But as someone else noted, that isn’t prohibited under federal law because Chick-fil-a is a private corporation that has no rights under the Civil Rights Act. And another private corporation — Northeastern University — can decide not to do business with Chick-fil-a because of concerns that it is perceived as anti-gay, even if those concerns are not supported by real evidence. In fact, Northeastern can simply say that because of the Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, it wanted to err on the side of caution of not bringing onto campus any business that even arguably may be perceived as anti-gay. And there is really nothing legally that Chick-fil-a (or the Justice Dept. that Charlie hoped might intervene) can do about that. Northeastern could also decide that it doesn’t want Chick-fil-a on campus because it thinks the company is too religious in opting to remain closed on Sunday, and that would still be a non-actionable business decision.

  6. Andre says:

    As I’ve said before I think this is completely mental.

    If you allow your politics to control your life, you are completely mental.

    You can’t eat at Chick-Fil-A because their owners don’t like the gays. You can’t shop at Wal-Mart because they’re anti-union. You can’t buy Girl Scout cookies because the Girl Scouts apparently support Planned Parenthood. You can’t listen to the Dixie Chicks because they don’t like George W. Bush. You can’t listen to Kelly Clarkson because she likes Ron Paul.

    If you’re going to keep a list of people and businesses you can and cannot support due to their politics, you might as well go ahead and kill yourself, because that ain’t living.

    (By the way, I support Chick-Fil-A because Chick-Fil-A remained in the community where it started. The original Chick-Fil-A Dwarf House, in Hapeville, is still open. And Chick-Fil-A’s global headquarters are right down the road from Hapeville, in College Park, about 2 miles from my house.)

    • Steve says:

      Ironically, I couldn’t agree more with all of this. I still eat a chicken sandwich there once in a blue moon. I do the best I can to shop my values, but *most* businesses have *something* objectionable about them if you dig deeply enough… so you’ll go nuts trying to be a 100% purist.

      I just think it’s silly to pretend that the restaurant and its owners are not anti-gay… or that an anti-gay nonprofit is sacrosanct because it waves the “faith-based” flag. Christian and anti-gay are not one and the same.

    • Doug Deal says:

      I don’t eat there because I enjoy life too much to be caught wasting a meal eating fast food.

      However, I will make an exception for some chicken biscuits and would even go there for dinner if they could be purchased then.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        I don’t really agree with CFAs politics, but I will eat myself into oblivion on their chicken sandwiches. It’s the only fried chicken I’ll eat (and that includes my Mom’s fried chicken). I don’t have time to plan my purchases based on whether the store or manufacturer or whatever agrees with my personal politics. Truett Cathy could blast gays on national television, I’ll still be eating those sandwiches. Because they’re just good.

          • CobbGOPer says:

            Buttered crack is about how they are to me as well. I’m just always in a rush in the mornings, and by the time I’m at the office, settled down, and with a free moment to pop to the CFA conveniently located off the lobby of my building, it’s too late to get a biscuit.

  7. seenbetrdayz says:

    Are we ever gonna reach the point in this country where we realize that you can’t legislate people into not being ***holes?

    To explain:

    If I were deciding who to do business with, I’d want to know up front if the people I’m doing business with were ***holes. I wouldn’t want a law that essentially forces them to conceal the fact that they’re ***holes. I might get tricked into doing business with an ***hole if the government passed a law that says they can’t openly act like ***holes. You know?

  8. TheEiger says:

    Have to disagree with you on this one Charlie. CFA should just leave and make money somewhere else or better yet build one right off campus and still make money off their students. Getting the justice department involved will not help in anyway. Why would we want to promote the federal government suing private institutions / companies / citizens. That’s just too big government for me.

  9. dorian says:

    I eat there because the food is tasty and delicious and I love their milkshakes. I personally don’t care if they are anti gay. Being anti gay is not on the menu. If you consider the cultural impact of a restaurant by not giving to some random gay charity then you’re probably a tool, and I don’t want to sit next to you in a restaurant anyhow.

    • To be fair, the beef (or chicken as it were) is not that CFA refuses to donate to a pro-gay charity, it’s that they give money to anti-gay charities. It would be better business for them just not to donate to these charities directly and let their owners or employees do it with their personal money. But then again, it wouldn’t be as easy for them to pretend that they are some kind of family organization with all their Winshape banners up.

      This is just based on anecdotal evidence, but my understanding from knowing people that worked there in high school is to get a scholarship of any value you’d have to basically work so many hours that you’d be required to drop out of high school in the process.

  10. saltycracker says:

    Litigation is not always the answer. CFA should keep doing what they do best, open an outlet off campus and sell chicken sandwiches.
    Turn the other cheek. CFA asking for or engaging in litigation over this in liberal Boston is not good publicity. If the Feds take it up, good for them.

  11. Joshua Morris says:

    CFA will be all right–they’re making money hand over fist anyway. It’s the poor chaps going to school at Northeastern that will suffer. Chick-fil-A sandwiches are good.

    • Clone Of B. Plyler says:

      I’m with BUZZ !!! Gay folks do like chicken, too.

      Chick-fil-A also gives to Toccoa Falls College. Does that put TFC on an anti-gay list, too?

      Mr. Cathy has a passion for kids that are in the foster care system. He doesn’t like the fact that they really have no family, or home, & will be moved around way too much. So, he has established a large network of homes for kids that need a loving, caring, family unit. Mr. Cathy considers each of those kids to be his grandchildren. Although he is 90 years old, I’ve been told that he still tries to visit each one. Those family units are Christian just like Mr. Cathy is. He is an example of someone who sees a need & tries to meet the need.

      So, he does great things with his money whether people know about it or not. Does he have to agree with you in order to do it ?

      If a college wants to keep Chick-fil-A off their campus they have a right to do so provided a contract has not been executed for Chick-fil-A to be on that campus. I think it’s the college’s loss if they want to do so. I also think anyone is very miopic (maybe with blinders on) if they want to pick a fight with Chick-fil-A over gay right issues.

      However, Charlie’s point about the Obama adminstration ,contraception, & ObamaCare is a strange link. It’s true that R’s need to focus on the fact that this is a gigantic (unprecedented)religious discrimination issue. There is no way it will stand if it gets to the Supreme Court. (I think the same thing about ObamaCare as well). The concession that the Administration has made that it will only require the healthcare provider to pay for contraception is no concession at all. Obama is saying that I don’t care what your church teaches…my enlightend adminstration trumps your teaching.

      I hope he fails…

  12. Jane says:

    Companies have the right to donate to what ever group they want to. Private, but not public, institutions have a broad right to contract with what ever vendor they wish too., for what ever reason they wish to give. Both CFA and Northeastern are in the right.

  13. johnl says:

    I was going to write a dissertation on the fact that being gay is not a “protected class” under the Civil Rights Act etc etc and that ChickFilA can do whatever the heck they want to do and further that I think McDonald’s actually makes a better biscuit – their sausage egg and cheese is my favorite but then I decided it would be a waste of my time so I didn’t write any of that.

  14. NoTeabagging says:

    Here is a link to the LGBT community research on the matter:
    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005#2 note point 5.

    Personally, I think anyone can use their personal wealth or foundation to donate to any causes they choose, including the promotion of traditional marriage.

    It is when these causes turn ugly and followers begin using their moral beliefs to incite hatred, bigotry, intolerance and violence that bothers me. I think any charitable donor should consider these factors before associating with any cause.

    I see no reason for judicial intervention. Winshape and Northwestern are free to pursue interests under their policies of acceptance, diversity and religious freedom.

    • Andre says:

      Why is it that gay rights activists always preach tolerance until you disagree with their viewpoint, then gay rights activists become some of the most intolerant people on the planet.

      Case in point, after it was revealed that 70% of blacks voted to ban gay marriage in California, gay rights activists attempted to blame blacks for the passage of proposition 8. It got so bad, out in California, that LAMBDA Legal, a gay rights group, issued a statement saying in part, “racial scapegoating was destructive and unacceptable.”

      So explain that to me. Explain why gay rights activists preach their tolerance, but lecture everyone else.

      • Steve says:

        During the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century… how “tolerant” were African-American leaders toward those who disagreed with the viewpoint that their children should be allowed into the same schools as white children? “Oh well, you say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to… lets just talk about UGA football instead…”

        Take a deep breath. Nobody’s burning crosses on anyone’s lawn. They simply disagree, and sometimes use words like “bigot”, when someone argues the belief that they should be second-class citizens. No reasonable definition of “tolerance” requires one to basically act like they’re in agreement with you when you’re 180-degrees apart.

        • Andre says:

          Well, you know, we could talk about the proper word usage of “bigot” all day long.

          There are plenty of bigots out there; a bigot being a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

          I’d say there are plenty of people out there who are utterly intolerant of any person who rejects the argument that homosexuality is genetic, and not a choice.

          And by the way, no one is arguing that gays should be second-class citizens, or treated as such.

          Gays are not segregated into “gay-only” schools. Gays are not told to get to the back of the bus. Gays are not told they cannot vote. Gays are not told they cannot shop in this store, or eat in that restaurant.

          All the things referenced above; the things which made black folks second-class citizens in this country, gays are not and were not victim to.

          So I reject the argument that gays are being subjected to second-class citizenship.

          Gays want to get married.

          I say that if anyone of any sexual orientation wants to get married, they should go to church.

          Marriage is a religious institution, and it is my opinion that government erred when granting government benefits to a religious institution. If anyone, gay or straight, wants to be married and their religion allows it, then they should get married. If a person wants some government benefits, such as tax deductions and the like, then they should go to the courthouse and arrange for a civil union.

          • kyleinatl says:

            But Georgia bans same sex civil unions, and the federal government doesn’t recognize them, …so, flawed logic there. I agree with your initial point though.

  15. sunkawakan says:

    I’m not sure I’m clear on your logic here, Charlie. Are you saying that if a religion holds a belief, regardless of what that might be, that it’s discrimination if an entity or individual says “no, you can’t participate because of your group’s stand (or their support for other groups who have a stand) on X”? Just because a religion has a view on something, doesn’t neccessarily make it right.

    • CobbGOPer says:

      Charlie’s lack of further response in this thread – particularly to the fact that the CRA doesn’t cover corporate entities, leads me to believe this column was a troll-posting. And it worked, unfortunately.

  16. Cassandra says:

    Why did the chicken cross the road?

    Because the chicken was gay! Isn’t it obvious? Can’t you people see the plain truth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the “other side.” That’s what they call it — the other side. Yes, my friends, that Chicken is gay. And, if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like “the other side.”

Comments are closed.