Does Chick-Fil-A fund hate groups? + More
If you are interested, here is my original response to the Chick-Fil-A controversy.
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/20120803/1344017139
Answer to the funds problem.
So someone linked an article that reports against Chick-fil-a (CFA) and organizations that it funds in order to show how evil the restaurant is, and how you should not be giving them your money. Well let's jump right into the rabbit hole and see how well these claims hold water shall we. Get ready for the usual circular reasoning and overwhelming details in their hopes of dissuading you from researching their claims. !!!!!***KEY***POINT***!!!!! It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the Cathy’s, Chick-fil-a or anyone else, what you need to pay attention to is the blatant lies and misquotes that are perpetrated right out in the open in an attempt to rally you against a villain character, and ask yourself, is the case being presented to me, an accurate one, or am I being played by my opinion and emotions?
The ***FIRST ARTICLE*** is from Huffington Post; here’s the link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html
Argument #1: Family Research Council (FRC) an organization that Chick-fil-a funds, is a legitimate hate group.
In the HP article, one of the first text links says, in regards to FRC that they "depict gay people as pedophiles" the link is to the ***SECOND ARTICLE*** which is a GLAAD article –
http://www.glaad.org/cap/tony-perkins
From there a link says that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) listed FRC as a hate group in 2010. Clicking that link takes you to a Washington Times article on the following page. This is the ***THIRD ARTICLE***.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/24/frc-labeled-a-hate-group/
So now in order to verify the claims of the first article we have to read through an additional 2 full articles. Can you sense the tactic of overwhelming information yet? The funny thing is, in cases like this, the very articles that someone uses also usually destroy their own argument, if people would only read them. But these authors are essentially either unaware of the content of the full article, only aware of information that they feel helps their case, or else they are totally dishonest and banking on the fact that you won’t look into their claims and find a plain and easy to see falsehood in their own words. In the Washington Times article we read that this labeling as a hate group was because the FRC opposes gay rights, but it does not say what rights. For instance they likely do oppose gay marriage, but that is not the same as opposing gay rights in general i.e. right to free speech, right to a fair trial, right to bear arms etc. And since there is no constitutional right to marry anyone you want, they simply have not opposed any ones rights. This is the kind of ignorant word play that is common on both the left and the right. In the fourth paragraph we read that it was because they "continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.” yet once again, no specifics are given in regards to this “demonizing literature”. Surely a single example shouldn’t be too much to ask for since they “continued to pump” this out. But keep reading, and we see that in regards to SPLC "even some ***LIBERALS*** have accused it of financial mismanagement and misleading fundraising practices." So here we have an organization who according to some ***LIBERALS*** has been guilty of financial mismanagement and misleading fundraising practices, and this same organization is the sole source of labeling the FRC as a hate group. This SPLC also just happens to be a law firm, who will benefit from the fruits of all of this turmoil when the inevitable law suits begin to flood. FRC’s status as a hate group, as far as the lack of evidence that I see is concerned, is complete fantasy. The “demonizing literature” that the FRC is accused of propagating has yet to be shown to my knowledge according to the content in the plethora of articles using the term “hate group” in describing them, and as we will soon see, every other claim that we will look at is falsified in some way; so why should anyone believe that the FRC is a hate group?
The Huffington Post (1st) article also states that FRC "wants to make gay behavior illegal, and [they/FRC] even say gay people should be exported out of America". Once again we have an organization being labeled with a cause, simply because of the personal opinion of a single individual, in this case senior person Peter Sprigg. Read the following quote, "SPLC added that Mr. Sprigg, when responding to a question in 2008 about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” You see, as un-Christian as this statement is, he wasn't proclaiming FRC desires or intentions, but merely giving a personal yet unChristian answer to a question, ***BASED ON HIS OPINION*** as evidenced in the phrase “***I*** would much prefer”. He later apologized for this. Yet the original Huffington Post article insists that this is a reflection of the FRC's ***CURRENT*** goals. Plain and simple: the author of the HP article either lied, or else he missed a glaring fact that was not in the least bit hidden. Mr. Sprigg’s second attributed comment about criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior, while he did say this, it was also not a policy of the FRC, but a personal opinion. If Mr. Sprigg apologized for his first statement, you can best believe that it was not sanctioned or condoned by the FRC, leading us to the rational conclusion that Mr. Sprigg is considered capable of being out of line even by the FRC. At the very least it is unfair and very dishonest to attribute a single man’s stated personal opinion as the FRC credo or goal. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Get used to it.
The GLAAD (3rd) article also states that FRC President Tony Perkins “Says about ***GAY PEOPLE***: “They are intolerant. They are hateful. They are vile. They are spiteful...pawns of the enemy.” (See 0:43 mark.)” Yet in the very video they themselves link you to, Mr. Perkins says this about gay ***ACTIVISTS*** and not gay people in general. Yet the GLAAD article insists that he says this about all gay people. Can you see the twisting of the truth and straight up lies being thrown out there? It’s not exactly hidden. In fact at 0:50 in the same video Perkins makes that even clearer when he addresses the ***AGENDA*** being pushed, which clearly draws a line between gay people and gay activists. So why did GLAAD play this shell game with his words? Were they being deliberately dishonest, or did they simply miss the plain truth?
This GLAAD article keeps going and I’ve only addressed the first 3 claims, so for the sake of time I’ll leave this one here, but rest assured, seeing that I tackled the first 3 in order and I did not skip around to find things that I could argue against, I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that each and every claim by this article is either a twisted truth, or an outright lie, but only further investigation can say for sure.
Argument #2 is against what Mr. Cathy actually said. “Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it ‘twisted up kind of stuff.’"
Quotes #1 & #2: “Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you ‘are inviting God's judgment on our nation,’" “and that we ‘shake our fist at Him’ when we do.” Yes and this is Biblical. Stepping away from God’s law is how a nation steps into judgment, while keeping His law is how a nation stays in His blessing. The keeping of the law for individuals is not how we are seen as righteous before God, believing Him is how we are seen as righteous, please see the following article
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nicholighkun/
Yet keeping the law ***IS*** how a nation can be either ***BLESSED OR CURSED*** by Him. Mr. Cathy is completely validated by the Scriptures on this one, read Deuteronomy 28. This holds true for the individual as well. We may not be saved/damned by keeping/not keeping God’s law, but we are still blessed/cursed by holding/throwing out God’s law. I don’t know of any Scripture that says otherwise.
Quotes #3 & #4: “Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it ‘twisted up kind of stuff.’" This one is certainly poorly worded, in the sense that it is guaranteed to offend, but it is techically correct, see Romans 1:18-32. But, I have not read the actual quote, so given the nature of the HP (1st) article so far, I’d say there’s a good chance that these quotes have been twisted or mis-represented too.
Argument #3 Huffington Post (1st) article “Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.”
Okay, so you can make a statement like this without showing statistics and facts now? So it’s ***IMPOSSIBLE***, despite the fact that there are those who have undergone this treatment and swear by it. Also, who cares if someone says“practically every major medical organization has stated” this or that? So I’m supposed to take your word for it that there are no credible medical organizations that disagree with this statement on a scientific or medical basis? Because I’m quite sure there are. Also, can you think of any other things in human history that were against the norm of their day, and even mocked as ridiculous nonsence, yet they turned out to be true? Because I can, but I can’t fall off the edge of the earth.
Again, it does not matter if you agree or disagree with this "pray the gay away" methodology, what you ***NEED*** to see is the deceptive and misleading practices used to rally you by your emotions.
Argument #4 Huffington Post (1st) article. Real discrimination. The article claims that CFA has had over ***12*** discrimination suits!!! I wonder how many discimination suits other restaurants have had in a comparitive amount of time in order to find what would be considered a normal average? And since when does a suit mean that you are guilty? And what were the claims of these law suits? How many were against gay people? And these are 12 suits, over how long a period of time? Chick-fil-a’s entire existance? I’d say that sounds pretty low to me. Esspecially considering the high likely hood that several of them were falsified claims, as statistical odds would suggest. These are important facts my friends.
The article also quotes Dan Cathy’s father “Truett Cathy has also said he would ***PROBABLY*** fire someone who ‘has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members.’" When was this statement made? The early 1960’s at CFA inception? Or more recently? Is someone saying they probably would do something the same as them actually doing it? And once again, is it fair to attempt to destroy the lively hood of thousands of employees simply because ***YOU*** don’t like someones opinion who owns or runs the place? If you don’t want your money going to them for the sake of where that money may end up, then don’t eat there. But if you want to make it a war by rallying troops against them, you had better bring good facts to the table or else you may be found a liar, and who knows what that will do for you.
Argument #5 Huffington Post (1st) article. “There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay [at] home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue."
When has CFA discriminated against gay people? Again we find ourselves in the midst of a shell game. The author of this article says that “CFA HAS OVER 12 DISCRIMINATION SUITS!!!” yet they do not disclose details of any of the suits, which I can only assume were from the period of it’s inception all the way up to today, which is roughly 50 years, and now this author wants us to believe that CFA discriminates against gay people, but they have still yet to show any evidence of this. Anyone else smell deciept?
The Bottom Line:
We have examined 3 articles; One of them completely, the second only partially, and a third, which was the only one reporting only facts with no slant or bias that I percieved. Debunking a couple of claims is not my goal here. My goal is to reveal the tactics of modern journalism. The first 2 articles contained only occasional truth, which was only used to augment the false and twisted lies presented. If you are going to rally on either side of any war, please do a little digging, as you may find that the “facts” presented you were nothing more than lies and twisted truth’s, slanted to rally people against a phantom villain. These tactics ***ARE*** employed on both sides, so I don’t want to give the impression that it’s only the left, it just so happens that the left is responsible for these particular bogus claims. Look into things before you rally behind them, because you may just be siding with the devil, whether you believe in him or not. ; I
Acts 17:10-11 “10. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, ***AND SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO.*** "
Be a Berean.
