The Chick-fil-A PR Crisis

 @KenMueller just tweeted you

 @HowieSPM I honestly don't know about the requirements and how they choose, but it is not a traditional franchise. The cost of entry is low: only $5,000, but I believe the parent company retains ownership, unlike other franchise opportunities. It's structured differently. I do know that their philosophy and culture is not a secret and they are very up front about it, which is what got them in trouble in this instance. I also know, as I mentioned elsewhere in the comments, that there is at least one operator in NC who has two stores (I think the current rules are that an operator can only have one) who is a lesbian, and has been with the company for at least 15 years. 

Also, I'm a bit confused by your statement that they are declaring this a win. I've not seen that anywhere.

 @KenMueller  they got 2 million new Likes on facebook and the company declared themselves a winner. 

So being a Jewish by blood person who rejects organized religion (though was bar mitzvahed against his will!) and calls himself Taoist would not be allowed to own a franchise?

 @barrettrossie  @rustyspeidel  @lwmace If I had to guess, it is the pains they took to separate the brand from Cathy's comments after the fact. The "we'll leave that in the political realm, we just want to build fans of tasty chicken."

 @jenzings  @ChristineEvans I think it takes courage to stand behind one's convictions and religious beliefs. I respect them for that sign... you never know how many lives it will save and that is a blessing. And, they don't look to be going out of business anytime soon, so... ;-)

 @3HatsComm  @KenMueller Once could argue that the attitudes are perfectly fine--they just aren't attitudes we all agree on. 

 @MackCollier I think it's best if we agree to disagree.

 @MSchechter  @MackCollier No, I had (and still do a bit) trouble figuring out who you thought 'crappy people' was.  I mean for all I knew you were trying to say that anyone that doesn't support gay marriage is 'crappy people'.  In which case, you've just thrown out a blanket statement that covers at least half the country's population.

Which is why I gave you a chance to clarify.  And for the record, I don't think Dan is a crappy person just because he doesn't support gay marriage anymore than I think you would be a crappy person if you DID.  

 @BethHarte No one is taking away Dan Cathy's rights, they're calling him a bigot and foolish from a PR perspective.  Again, he has the right to his opinion, and I have the right to my outrage over his opinion.

 @BethHarte He IS free to express his opinion, and he must deal with the consequences - other people expressing THEIR opinions. And voting with their wallets.

 @MSchechter That is a totally fair request. ;-) Have a great weekend. @MackCollier  @keithprivette 

 @jenzings Thanks for the clarification, Jen. :) Have a great weekend! 

 @MackCollier  @BethHarte  @keithprivette A "possible implication" I've now corrected twice. And "all of the comments' have been you and Beth, let's not pretend there's been some kind of groundswell here. Obviously you and Beth feel very strongly one way, and I strongly another. Let's leave it at that.

 @BethHarte  I wasn't too clear on how it came about--the legislature voted to recognize gay marriage in I think 2009. The bill was signed by the governor, and went into law. When the makeup of the NH House switched parties, they (despite running on economic, not social issues, and despite considerable polling that was done both before the vote in 2009 and after, which showed support for same sex marriage) decided to try and pass legislation that reversed the law. More polling continued to show support, and it was ultimately the outpouring of public comment telling them to leave this issue alone that cause the House to ultimately table the measure. The support here is unequivocal.

What I believe is happening is that those who oppose gay marriage in this state know they don't have the support or the votes to overturn it. They are using it as a fundraising issue, knowing that--at least here--there is a minority who will.not.let.this.go. So they get them all riled up so that they will donate and vote.

 @jenzings  Jen, something sounds terribly wrong there. Polls can be misleading and positioned to say anything (i.e. we can make stats say anything we'd like).

But that said, if 60% of NH residents are for gay marriage and they vote accordingly, how an the State just overturn and not accept those votes? Maybe there is a piece of the legislation process not mentioned. 

I just get the sense that either people aren't voting the way they are speaking about issues. Here in PA (a very blue state), people talk about it, but I can't remember the last time it came up for a specific vote... I need to check into that. 

As always, thanks for the insightful comments and experience! cc:  @megtripp 

 @BethHarte  @megtripp Re: "shockingly low"/only 6 states, etc.

I can tell you from the experience of someone in one of the states where gay marriage is legal that, even though poll after poll has shown that more than 60% of the voters here support it, there was STILL an effort to overturn the law during our most recent legislative session. In short, legislators didn't really care what the people of this state wanted, they still tried to overturn it. After significant hard lobbying, they (correctly) tabled the measure. And yet, the Speaker of the House here is STILL stating that one of his goals next year is to overturn the measure. His obsession with this, given New Hampshire's support for gay marriage, borders on pathological.

The acceptance of gay marriage has been one of the quickest tracked changes in American political opinion, and polls show the pace accelerating. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/same-sex-marriage-support-shows-pace-of-social-change-accelerating.html ). It will take time for it to filter through to states, for sure. That doesn't mean it isn't occurring.

 @megtripp  Just something to ponder... Whether people or like it, historically marriage has always been defined by Judeo-Christianity. And Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist marriages have always been between a man and woman. Take that observation for what it's worth to you (generic you... as in anyone reading this).

 @megtripp BTW, I'd like to vote on who can get married and have kids... would make this country a better place. Alas, we don't have that right. ;-) Have a great weekend! 

 @megtripp  Meg, how have you been? Congrats on the wedding!  I totally agree with what you are saying. I have said in my comments that I don't care if gay people join together in a legal civil union.  We do have separation of church and state and it is legal in six states (which, I find shockingly low for all the support people claim there is for gay marriage). 

What I am saying, again, is that Dan Cathy has a right to his religious beliefs as well. He is being crucified in the media and blogosphere for his beliefs. And to me, that is hypocritical and intolerant as the pro-gay people don't want to be on the receiving end of the same sort of judgment.

I have also said from the beginning "vote with your wallet." But more importantly get out and VOTE or work with people to educate them and get them out to vote. 

We are on very thin ice if secularism overrides the right to freedom of religion in this country.

I am just trying to get folks to consider BOTH sides of the coin... to be tolerant. 

 @MSchechter  @BethHarte  @keithprivette To be fair MS, your first comment here included a reference to 'crappy people' with the possible implication that you feel anyone that doesn't support gay marriage is a 'crappy person'.  Personally, I think that set the tone to a degree for all the comments you have received.  Which is why I gave you a chance to clarify.  

You definitely got some 'charged' replies here, but I think you also invited them, to a degree.  

ZOMG all my formatting left the building. Sorry.

 @MSchechter  @BethHarte

The primary argument against gay marriage seems to be that marriage is a religious act, and if your deity of choice does not dig homosexuality, it's not going to be cool with gay people getting married, and so it shouldn't happen. Marriage by that definition would appear to be a partnership between a man and a woman for the purposes of joining households and procreating and doing all the other traditional combined-lives stuff.

But, if there is a) separation of church and state, and b) freedom of religious expression, then there is no faith perspective to take into account in government policy AND there isn't a single faith perspective to take into account, regardless. Not every religion that performs marriage ceremonies believes marriage is limited to a man and a woman, so are we saying that true marriage is solely Judeo-Christian? Or maybe just Judeo-Christian and whoever else believes marriage is only between a man and a woman? If that were the case, and the only marriages that exist were performed by Judeo-Christian clergy and all Judeo-Christian clergy believed homosexuals should not marry, then marriage wouldn't be a political issue, it would be a Judeo-Christian one. But I applied for a marriage license in city hall (nothing religious there), and was married by a JP (nothing religious there), so apparently this is a government thing now. And people are married in Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. ceremonies, so the institution of marriage is not solely Judeo Christian.Which would mean anyone could have whatever view they wanted based on their religious perspective, and live their lives the way they wanted to live them, and not have a say in what anyone else did. (And by the way, if we're all going to be sticklers about the whole Judeo-Christian thing, that would also mean people shouldn't get married unless they're intending to have families, and that would knock out a LOT of Christians I know. But no one's trying to stop them from ruining marriage! If we were doing that, I'd barely get in under the wire by marrying someone who already had a kid, and even then, oops, he'd been divorced. Is THAT okay?) Regardless, what the heck does what anyone believes religiously speaking have to do with what a government does? You can be against whatever you want, but the government is not subject to your religious views other than the way you use your vote to reflect them -- that's a major tenet of American government. But YOU can be. You don't have to marry a gay person or to see two gay people get married or perform a marriage for gay people if you don't want. The pro-life conversation centers around the origin of life question, but again, the government is not subject to any religion's view of the origin of life. YOU are subject to your religion's view of the origin of life, which means you don't have to get an abortion. If there is a vote on abortion, you can vote according to your perspective.But the fact that we're voting about these things at all points to an already existing bias in government, and a bias that seems to be limited to very specific areas of law and life. And now that those things are slowly being legalized, I can see why people are freaking out that the bias is shifting away from their religious tradition. Isn't that closer to the constitutional definition of gov't, though?And if we're getting to vote on everything other people do according to our faith beliefs, why am I not getting to vote on whether or not assholes get to have children? .There's plenty of stuff in the bible about how to treat kids, and I am not getting to vote on whether or not we hold parents to that.Regardless, you can shout how you feel about either issue to the skies, but if we live in a country with a separation of church and state, the government is not subject to your religious perspective outside of your vote. Which Chick Fil-A dude is exercising, and he can exercise it. But the only person he can or should be able to legally prevent being married to a gay person is himself. If we never forced any religions to perform any marriages they didn't wish to perform and we didn't force the government to limit marriages according to what any particular religions chose to do--as again, NO ONE RELIGION DEFINES MARRIAGE--I think we'd hit the balance. Because the one should not control what the other does. (And by the way, I AM a Christian, and the daughter and granddaughter of ministers. Whatever my personal views might be on any of these issues, I believe that government should be separate from religion.)

 @keithprivette Howdy! How have you been? I am back on "the FB" if you want to connect... :) Have a great weekend.  

 @MSchechter The 'armchair quarterback' and 'hypocrite' comments were meant to be emotionally charging. :)

I want people to stop whining and DO SOMETHING. I don't care what people believe in or support, but if someone believes that strongly, get involved in politics. 

But to keep whining and trying to shove opinions down people's throats without taking action (literal action!) is someone just being a mouthpiece.  

I didn't like something that was going on in our local politics, so I did something about it -- I got involved. I walked door-to-door trying to get people to vote. Like I said above... it's easy to get involved and to support a cause at a political level. 

Have a great weekened, @MSchechter ! I have enjoyed our conversation. :) 

 @MSchechter  Yes, it's your right to not eat at Chick-fil-a and to think Dan Cathy is a crappy person. I don't deny that one bit.

That said, to call people bigots and discriminatory because they stand up for their religious beliefs is treading on the very dangerous ground of reverse discrimination and bigotry. That's the point. The reason I bring up Muslims is because no one seems to be so anxious to attack their religion/religious position. I find that very insightful...

We don't need to agree at all. I totally respect your beliefs and position on this matter... as I am tolerant of others. ;-) 

 @BethHarte  @keithprivette The conversation is intrinsically emotionally charged, wasn't suggesting you were making it so (although I won't lie terms like silly, armchair quarterback and hypocrite certainly do get my blood boiling).

I utterly disagree with the reverse discrimination point when it comes to gay marriage as they only thing you're forcing on someone is the lack of an ability to deny something to someone else, but as I said to Mack above, I doubt either one of us will budge either one of us here.  

As for the Dan Cathy and Dan Cathy only, you see it as a measured statement, I see it as a hateful one. We will never agree here either and likely never even come closer on the issue. 

As to conflating it with abortion, well, I think I've already been clear that this complicates an already complicated issue. 

Neither one of us is benefiting from this conversation, so let's just end it. Feel free to get the last word in and add something else that's highly irrelevant to the conversations such as our collective unwillingness to stand up to Muslims...

 @MackCollier  @BethHarte As I said earlier, I agree, I should have said crappy people, just crappy person. That said, that crappy person will keep me from supporting the company he works for. As is my right. 

As to the nuance of what someone who denies someone the right to gay marriage means about their feelings towards said gay people, it's far more complicated and something I doubt you and I will ever 100% agree on (although I'd imagine if we kept digging we

d find that both our mutual feelings on the issue are closer the the center than the extreme). 

That said, I think we should let things sit as we're essentially just going round and circles and that's not solving anything and I'd imagine as unenjoyable for you as it is for me at this point.

 @MSchechter @keithprivette Trust me, I am not trying to make this a "heated" conversation. I am simply trying to point out one itty bitty thing...

By forcing the rights of one group on another, there is reverse discrimination. 

That's it. That's the only point I was trying to make. 

And for the group that is all about "tolerance," reverse discrimination is nothing at all tolerant.

The Cathy's have said nothing vitriolic or discriminatory. They are simply stating their religious beliefs, which is absolutely legal and they have a right to do. 

They have said over and over that they do not discriminate against gay people. They have said that they do not support gay marriage as it is against their religious beliefs. (i.e. my point about abortion... it is against certain groups religious belief to take an unborn life.)

What I wonder is how many people are willing to go up against Muslims who have the same belief...  Would people be willing to have the same outcry or would they fear what would happen?

Christians are an easy target...

And I say again, this is America... if you don't like what you perceive to be discrimination, then absolutely get involved in politics, walk door-to-door to get people out to vote. But man, stop being an armchair quarterback. It's tiring. 

 @MSchechter  @BethHarte Whenever you try to apply the behavior of the perceived outliers as being representative of the majority (ie, 'when I see people speak out it with the vitriol of that man'), then you argument is on very shaky ground.

And for the record, I live in the Bible Belt of the South.  Hell I live in the freaking BUCKLE of the Bible Belt.  If every state in the union eventually makes gay marriage legal, Alabama will probably be the last one to do so.  I have been living here for over 4 decades and never in my life have I heard a single person in this state that overwhelming supports a gay marriage ban, say they hate gays.  In fact, I've never seen any person engage in any type of behavior that would make me even question if they think ill of gay people.

It's just not reality.  

 @BethHarte  @MSchechter Yes but legally a man and man or a woman and a woman cannot get married by law not by religion.  I have no problem with religious institutions saying no to it. I kind of figure they will.  But legally we are discriminating a whole group of folks of obtaining the same status of us man and woman marriages.  That is discrimination period! And saying you can have something else like civil unions or domestic partnerships is nowhere even close as obtaining a marriage license.

Here is a far fetch idea....let's say there are other life out there and they decided to come by earth and live.  Now these other life forms are neither man or woman.  Let's say a woman wants to marry this other life form can they obtain a marriage license?

Oh and Beth I totally loved seeing you show up!!!!!!! I got really excited!

 @BethHarte To clarify, since you seem so very eager to jump to the conclusion that what I'm saying is often the worst possible thing, I'm not saying it is a lesser issue. I'm just saying they are different and that comparing the two or conflating them isn't helpful. This has nothing to do with how I feel on one issue on the other. I'm saying they are two different issues that should be discussed separately. Chances of us solving one 0% chances of us dealing with both without the conversation getting even more heated, far less.

My viewpoint, which you seem to know so very much about (so cool how you're totally in my head and seem to know what I'm thinking and totally get my view of the world, while understanding my entire belief structure, btw), is that this is already confusing enough and now I can't even tell if the second paragraph you wrote has to do with abortion, gay rights or both.

To clarify some more, my view, which strictly has to do with gay-marriage is that pro-gay marriage allows everyone access to something beautiful while anti-gay marriage prohibits someone else from something beautiful and I find that to be harmful and kind of crappy. It's my belief, it's not a law and even though there are probably plenty of wonderful people working at Chick-Fil-A, including a woman who wrote a wonderful conflicted post about her experiences as a gay employee there, I have this awesome thing called my right not to ever support a company whose president says what I believe to be horrible things and supports causes that I think are harmful. Even if that's to the detriment of all the wonderful people working below him and flies in the face of one of many laws that I abide by, but don't always agree with.

As to the Anti-Gay Marriage vs. Anti-Gay. I see what you and Mack are saying and in most cases you're probably right, but when I see people speak out about it with the vitriol of that man, they likely are. And while that vitriol may be entirely perceived on my end, it's still my right to perceive it. And I don't think you'd deny that the post you linked to earlier (the FB one from the store manager) seemed to go painfully out of its way to not talk to the character of that man, instead pivoting to both the company and the founder.

But hey, now we're bringing Holocaust survivors into the conversation, cause that's bound to focus us... 

 @MSchechter  Abortion is absolutely an apt comparison, but you don't see it that way because you want to offer "rights" to one select group (i.e. gay marriage/secular rights), but deny them to another (i.e. traditional marriage/religious rights). As long as the right meets *your* definition, then it is a "human" right.  

Your view of human rights totally denies another group their rights at the very same time. And that viewpoint is completely hypocritical. Either you believe that ALL American's have rights under the Constitution or you believe only select groups have rights. You can't have it both ways. 

"Being tolerant does not mean that I share another one's belief. But it does mean that I acknowledge another one's right to believe, and obey, his own conscience" -- Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl.

The tolerance gang would be smart to understand and heed Mr. Frankl's words. 

 @BethHarte  @MackCollier You keep wanting to compare pro-life, it's not an apt comparison. There are similarities, but they are not the same. While these comparisons aren't perfect either, I could just as easily point out that I'm sure blog comments surrounding things like desegregation and suffrage would have used similar excuses had blogs existed during those crappy parts of our history as well. 

Since this is going so well and we're accomplishing so much here, should we all talk about gun rights as well?

 @MSchechter  That's fair. And that's why we live in the USA...we have the right to disagree. :) cc: @MackCollier 

 @MSchechter  That's the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Being pro-life doesn't make someone anti-woman. Just like being pro-marriage (man/woman) doesn't make someone anti-gay.Just an observation, but I think what we really need to ask is that if it is so acceptable, why is it only legal in 6 out of 50 States (and Washington D.C.). I am thinking that either proponents aren't doing a very good job at getting out and voting or there aren't as many proponents as people would like to think there are. Otherwise, it would be legal in a lot more states...especially the blue states. 

cc:  @MackCollier 

 @MackCollier  @BethHarte Like I said before, best if we agree to disagree here.

 @MSchechter  @BethHarte Hmmm...so gays think half the country hates them?  I find that hard to believe.

 @MackCollier  @BethHarte I'm guessing it probably comes from gay people... but that's just a guess.

 @BethHarte  "Anti-gay marriage does NOT equate to anti-gay.  "

Can you please say this again?  Also, being opposed to gay-marriage does NOT mean you hate gays.  I honestly have no idea where that comes from either.

 @BethHarte Oh, I don't think it does in all cases, just this one. I enjoyed that link you shared, but I do think the pivot away from Dan and toward Truett is telling. Good talking to you. 

 @MSchechter I agree with that statement up above. Who are we to question God? ;-) I disagree that anti-gay marriage = anti-gay. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That said, if someone wants a legally binding union, I could care less... It's secular at that point.   

You have a right to your opinion, I don't argue that. Not one bit. And yes, you can change laws... with your vote! Anyone who has strong convictions, like you seem to have, should get involved in politics. It's easy to do and it will also help people to understand how our government works.

Like I said armchair quarterbacks help no one's cause. ;-) Nice chatting with you!  

 @BethHarte To clarify, the huge assumption is that his anti-gay marriage stance also translates to anti-gay.

 @BethHarte This statement:

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,"

From this interview: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/07/audio-chickfila-president-coo-dan-cathy-says-arrogant-same-sex-marriage-shaking-fist-at-god-invites-god-judgment.html

 tells me what I need to know about the guy. Is it a huge assumption, yes. Am I comfortable making it in this case, yes. Am I wrong, probably, but I'm good with that.

There's no legal wrongdoing here, so I don't see how it's a huge aspect of this. I don't like his opinion, I think it makes him a crappy person, therefore I will not support his business. No hypocrisy, just a choice. As for abortion, I feel differently than you and believe a woman has the right to choose, so I wouldn't take up that cry. That said, I totally see why you would. You have to stand for what you believe in life as do I. I don't expect this to change laws, just where I potentially buy chicken that's probably been ground up, processed and reconstituted in the future.

 @BethHarte Yes indeed. To me, it seems incongruous to fight for the rights of one group of human beings while marginalizing another. That makes no sense to me.

 @RizzoTees It's just the flip side of the coin... :) 

 @MSchechter First, that's a huge assumption right there. People have said over and over that they have gay employees and have never denied a gay person service. Anti-gay marriage does NOT equate to anti-gay.  

Second, the legality and Constitution aspect of this conversation is huge and that's the point people are missing.  He brought it up in conversation because the issue from the controversy that happened last year was brought up. The "humanity" of it is the hypocrisy of it... the other point I am trying to make here. People want to cry "oh, the humanity!" but they don't have that same cry when it affects their beliefs/rights, like abortion. I

It's the "intolerance" of the "tolerance" gang that I can't stand. If people want to align themselves with a party who's freedom cry is tolerance, then you MUST be tolerant of all things. But alas, they pick and choose what/who should be awarded tolerance who should not. Again, it's hypocritical. 

 @BethHarte Yes, I do see that. I understand. 

 @BethHarte  @MSchechter Have an opinion, but have the stones to stick to it when the going gets rough and unpopular. 

 @BethHarte Appreciate that, I did read it as pointed at me (as well as others), so thanks for the clarification.

I have no problem with Dan Cathy thinking what he thinks, I also have no problem thinking what I think of him because of it. 

To be frank, I could give a crap about the legality of it, I care about the humanity of it. And personally, I think it sucks, I also think it has nothing to do with a Chicken franchise, so why say it in an interview about your business other than to garner attention for your business. And if this is what they choose to do to invigorate their core customer, their chicken probably sucks :)

Think of it this way, if McDonalds suddenly spoke out or donated to Planned Parenthood, you'd probably be unhappy enough about it to say so and would likely take your business elsewhere. 

You're right, being an armchair quarterback isn't going to change a thing. Voting with our wallets and never giving that company another dollar again, might. 

 @MackCollier  @BethHarte It will be interesting to see if even a few of their employees speak out on their behalf. You're probably right that I'm drawing conclusions, but it's a fairly logical conclusion to draw. There may be exceptions to the rule, but I can't imagine this is the worlds gay friendliest company. I would LOVE to be wrong.

 @MSchechter I wasn't calling *you* specifically a hypocrite. Apologies if it came off that way. I was using your comment as a sounding board. :)

I was saying that a lot of people commenting here are hypocrites. They want their "rights," but they are not allowing Dan Cathy to have his. That's hypocritical. 

We can all have an opinion and vote with our wallets, but we cannot trample on someone else's rights. 

Being legally married as a gay couple is not legal in some States/Commonwealths. This is not Dan Cathy's fault or his issue. If people want others to have the right civil unions (which everyone who is married in a church, synagogue, etc. must do before their wedding date) whoever they wish, then it is the people's responsibility to actively vote and work with politicians to make it happen.

Being an armchair quarterback isn't going to change whether or not gay civil unions become legal (or not). 

 @RizzoTees ...some people find abortion, while legal, distasteful. Further, hiding behind the legal system to espouse an untenable position that marginalizes a fellow human being (who was created by God) is unacceptable to a lot of people. I think it reasonable people want to respect the opinions of others, but it gets harder when those beliefs rub up against human rights. See how that works? 

 @MSchechter  @BethHarte "You're right... I'm sure this is likely a company where everyone, including gay employees, get a fair shake... "

The comments below seem to suggest that's exactly the case.  But as human beings, in the end we all tend to believe what we want to believe.

whoops repeated my as wells there...

 @BethHarte yes, points where one person calls another a hypocrite are often taken well and given the consideration they deserve...

Dan Cathy absolutely has the right to his opinion. I also have the right to think his opinion makes him a crappy person. You also have the right to think that makes me a hypocrite.

As for your final point, the commitment is in never supporting a company like that, not in caring enough to create your own chicken company. But hey, as you see above I like making over the top statements to make a point as well from time to time as well...

 @BethHarte I think what some people might be saying or feeling is that Mr Cathy's beliefs, while currently legal, are distasteful to some. Further, hiding behind religion to espouse an untenable position that marginalizes a fellow human being (who ostensibly was created by God) is unacceptable to some. I think reasonable people want to respect the opinions of others, but it gets harder when those beliefs rub up against human rights.

 @MSchechter I was simply trying to make a point. Sorry it was based on your comment. :) My point is simply...everyone has an opinion. This is America, we are free to have one. But having one doesn't give someone the right to shove it down my throat as a matter of public policy or politics when it suits them. I find so much hypocrisy in these sorts of conversations. No one seems to want to say that Dan Cathy has a legal right to his opinion, his freedom of religious beliefs and how he wants to run his company.  If someone doesn't like what he stands for, then open up your own chicken fast food chain. But see, no one is really *that* committed to their beliefs.