Vandalizing Chick-fil-a stores.

6
57

Anyone that has a television or access to the internet is aware of the controversy surround Chick-fil-a. Since the President of the firm came out against gay marriage, the company has been in the spotlight. Let me say a few things, this post isn’t about whether or not we agree with Chick-fil-a, it’s about right and wrong. Personally, until all the noise surrounding this controversy I had never even heard of Chick-fil-a! Do you want to know how much I care about the company president’s opinion? I care as much as I did before I ever heard of them, which is ZERO.

I’ll repeat, this post is about right and wrong. Gay marriage views are based on personal opinion, there is no concrete right and wrong, it is subjective depending on your own personal views and beliefs. In my opinion you can support either side, and you have the right to feel that way about it.

Any reasonable person has to agree that whether or not you do or do not support gay marriage, once people start vandalizing and destroying public property, it is a crime. It does not help your cause when you take violent or destructive steps to try and make your point.

What happens if the cops catch you spray painting public property? It’s their job to stop crime, right? So when they arrest for vandalism, will you then blame them for “targeting” gays, and being anti-gay? Or do you have the common sense to see that you are committing a crime, and that they are doing their job, which is preventing crime. Do you see my point here, the many ways this behavior can go wrong?

I don’t like the things people are doing because of Chick-fil-a’s stance. There is freedom of association in this country, and no one has to like or accept your life style. Trying to force anyone to accept your ways is no different than them trying to force¬† you to accept their ways. Live and let live. If you don’t like their views, don’t go to their store, eventually the store will fold. You are probably helping them make money now, think about “Chick-fil-a” appreciation day.

I’m not saying I support the chick people, I do not, but my stance is irrelevant. What I am saying is that attacking the livelihood of a franchise owner that probably has never met and possibly doesn’t agree with that company president is not the way to do things.

By the way, up until his very recent “Evolution”, Obama had the same stance on gay marriage as this chick-fil-a guy. Where was all the protesting then?



Note the date on a post as it may be an old point of view. If you learn that your views are wrong, yet they remain the same, then you are a fool.

The opinions and views expressed are solely those of the author.

  • Winston Smith

    I have 2 comments on this:

    1, I'd have to call this a "recursive" statement: it's the painter, himself that's expressing the "hate"

    2, Hundreds of thousands of folks show up, peacefully, at the Chic-fil-a BUYcott and the lamestream media avoids even the MENTION of it like the plague – BUT let 2 couples show up at the "Kiss-in" in some store in far-away-nowhere and it will become a total media circus!

    • I agree, as far as the painter's view point being expressed. Problem is that one apple ruins the bunch. I equate this to the bad occupy protesters that took a dump on police cars and launched bricks from 2nd story buildings. It hurts the overall effort, and creates a tense situation for all parties involved. So yes, it is the painter's wrongdoing. The peaceful protesters should express their distaste in his/her behavior.

      I disagree on point 2 though Winston. Look at my very last line. Up until recently Obama's stance was against it, yet there was radio silence on this. Take a look at this article on how none of the major news articles covered the peaceful protest actions by Christians in support of the company. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mainstream-me

      We have to remember that the individual owners of the business may not agree. Hell they could be gay married couples themselves, or have children, relatives, friends that they support.. They cannot be punished for the views of the name owner. I mean, what are they supposed to do? Close down the livelihood because of some religious guy's viewpoint?