Chick-fil-A, the Bible, and LGBT Bullying

by walterm on July 28, 2012

As many already know, the LGBT movement has now set its sights on the Chick-fil-A company ever since President Dan Cathy made recent comments in a (quite beautiful) interview with the Baptist Press about his company advocating for family values rooted in the Bible.  Specifically, what raised their ire was his company’s support of the traditional family led by a man and a woman, a position on which he said the company was “guilty as charged,” with no plans to change course despite opposition from various groups. Now we see a constant barrage from the liberal media, gay advocacy groups, and even public figures charging that Chick-fil-A and Christian organizations that it donates are “anti-gay.” Well, I don’t see being pro-traditional marriage as necessarily being anti-gay, but it is clearly opposed to gay marriage. And this is a critical distinction that the gay advocacy groups refuse to make or allow because it doesn’t fit into their narrative. While Cathy may be against gay marriage, Chick-fil-A welcomes customers of all types without reservation, and has not exhibited any discriminatory hiring practices, treating both gay employees and customers with the same “honor, dignity, and respect” as everyone else. So Chick-fil-A is hardly being “intolerant,” or lacking in “diversity” or “inclusiveness” — words now used as verbal cudgels.

In reading various articles about this issue, what surprised me was just how much moralizing was going on by those who abhor morals specifically when advanced by Christians. One article in BusinessWeek correctly stated that while it is not surprising that a company that holds to biblical values would disapprove of gay marriage, the problem is that Cathy “crossed the line” by openly condemning the beliefs of a big chunk of Chick-fil-A’s audience. Yet I don’t recall them saying that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, or Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, crossed a line by their donations to a campaign to defend the same-sex marriage law in the state of Washington. So should Christians now boycott Amazon and Microsoft for their CEO’s actions, as LGBT advocacy groups are encouraging gay marriage supporters to do against Chick-fil-A? Cathy has a specific moral position that is opposed by Ballmer and Bezos, but Cathy is the one who is supposed to give up his moral code in favor of the moral code of Ballmer, Bezos, and gay advocacy groups? It appears to me they feel this is a requirement, and thus Cathy does not have the right to have a view that is discordant with theirs. Now where is the tolerance in that?

As gay marriage advocates would have it, Christians are supposed to sit idly by and watch them actively advance a social agenda that is anti-biblical, as if Christians have no say so even as citizens of the United States. Gay advocacy groups, indeed, are making a moral argument as are Christians. Yet they seem to think their moral arguments are superior, and if Christians don’t agree with theirs then we are necessarily hateful and homophobic for opposing same-sex marriage. But what other position would they expect a Christian to have? The Bible is explicit about God’s view on homosexuality as a sin, so gay marriage isn’t even a consideration. If a person is a Bible-believing Christian, then that person will necessarily look on homosexual sin in the same way that they look on the sins of idolatry, premarital sex, and adultery. To see this, let’s take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:8-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I don’t know how this could be clearer, as this passage is entirely within context. If Christians give in on gay marriage, this would undermine the authority of the Bible, and render it as no more than an error prone document inspired by nothing more than men. Gay marriage advocates would have succeeded in ushering in a new morality unmoored from traditional Christian values, with no credible alternative. They follow a secular humanist ideology bent on destroying biblical values and the fundamental institutions that have held societies together for millennia. So Christians should not yield to charges that we are discriminating against gays, because in truth this is an epic battle of worldviews where gay marriage is simply the tip of the iceberg. The tactics of gay marriage advocates are personal destruction, subjugation of the rights of others, and intolerance of contrary views, which is hardly a more enlightened philosophy. Yet the Bible does not call on Christians to treat homosexuals poorly or hurt them in any way, but to love them. They are our brothers and sisters, but that does not mean we should condone their sin any more than we should condone the sin of premarital sex and couples cohabitating before marriage. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that is why we need God’s grace. It is not a license to sin or to condone the sin of others.

Now what I would ask a gay marriage advocate is on what basis they make their moral claim to gay marriage or any other particular issue that is important to them? Some attempt to make a false Christian moral claim, talking about how Jesus was loving and inclusive, while ignoring that he died on the cross for our sins. Yet if sin was of no import, then what was the point of dying on the cross? The fact is if Jesus is the son of God, then the entire word of God applies, not what pieces gay marriage advocates use to advance their agenda while discarding the parts they don’t like. Now if they say that society ultimately determines morality unmoored to the natural law, then it is nothing more than arbitrary and they have no objective ground to stand on, since it would be all about who can best advance their agenda. If that’s the case, then the moral argument is only a convention and becomes null and void. Thus, they can’t say that gay marriage is the “right” thing to do because there is no “right” thing to do. So they must battle it out just as the opposition does and should simply stop making the moral argument. Their moral argument has fundamentally no greater claim than mine. So we’re even.

The bottom line of this debate is that if gay marriage advocates believe Ballmer and Bezos have a constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to the cause of gay marriage, then Cathy has the same right to free speech and to contribute to a cause that wishes to preserve traditional marriage. But these hypocrites don’t believe that, and that is why I think they’re nothing more than bullies who believe people should only have the right to agree with their views. And that is highly dangerous to our republic. They cannot make a valid Christian moral claim, and they can’t make a secular moral claim that has greater validity than any other moral claim, Christian or otherwise.  So they can protest all they want, but deriding Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A just shows that they don’t believe in diversity or tolerance for views they don’t agree with. And that is why I believe the LGBT movement consists of nothing but a bunch of hypocritical, sanctimonious bullies. In the end, this is a state by state issue, and thus far all 32 states that have voted have upheld traditional marriage. So this demonizing of traditional biblical values must end because those who don’t respect this moral code and don’t respect free speech are hardly offering a viable alternative that can sustain our republic.


{ 1 trackback }

Chick-Fil-A, the Bible & LGBT Bullying by Walter Myers III « Conservative Calmversation
July 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: