Chick-fil-A Trading Integrity for Profitability

Current Events, Marriage, , ,

Recently, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told an interviewer he regrets his company’s pro-marriage stance it took two years ago.

Calling the decision to support traditional marriage “a mistake,” Cathy indicated Chick-fil-A’s priority going forward would be courting a new generation of consumers–one who, if you read between the lines, he must feel supports same-sex marriage.

In a move that’s sure to offend both sides, Cathy said that while his personal views on same-sex marriage have not changed, he does not intend to take a public stance on the issue. To put it another way, gay activists who have been boycotting Chick-fil-A have every reason to continue doing so, and conservatives who celebrated Chick-fil-A for their courageous stance for traditional marriage may decide they would just as soon take their business to Popeyes or KFC.

This back-peddling from Mr. Cathy is incredibly disappointing, and it betrays a failure to grasp the significance of Chick-fil-A’s actions these past few years.

(more…)

READ MORE

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NM Photographer’s Appeal

Marriage, Religious Freedom, , , ,

An appeal from a New Mexico photographer sued for refusing to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” will not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Elane Photography appealed to the court after a lower court ruling left Elaine Huguenin with hefty fines for refusing to compromise her religious beliefs.

Recent polling has shown as many as 85% of Americans believe photographers should be free to decline photographing a same-sex wedding.

From Alliance Defending Freedom:

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to hear Elane Photography v. Willock, the case of a photographer who was told by the New Mexico Supreme Court that she must, as “the price of citizenship,” use her creative talents to communicate a message with which she disagrees or suffer punishment.

…

“Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system.”

Click here to read more.

READ MORE

FRC: Understanding Windsor

Marriage, , ,

Still don’t understand all the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 United States v. Windsor decision? You aren’t alone.

Fortunately, Family Research Council has put together a brief report outlining the Windsor ruling–which struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The report points out:

“Dissenting justices criticized the majority for its attack upon the motives behind the law. Chief Justice Roberts said that the facts are ‘hardly enough to support a conclusion that the ‘principal purpose’ of the 342 Representatives and 85 Senators who voted for it, and the President [Bill Clinton] who signed it, was a bare desire to harm’ … Justice Scalia likewise … explained that to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.”

The report also addresses looming questions for state and federal agencies in the wake of the ruling.

You can read the entire report here.

READ MORE