- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Protester: Chick-fil-A CEO crossed line by supporting hate group

Published: Sat, August 4, 2012 @ 8:49 p.m.


The fact that many gay and transgender people still suffer discrimination and persecution for who they are is something David Barnes, Bonnie Humphrey, Carrie Gray and Alex Barnes find hard to swallow.

So after the chief executive officer of a national restaurant chain recently expressed opposition to gay marriages and unions, they expressed their opposition to his views.

“You don’t have to be gay to support the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community,” said David Barnes of Cortland, referring to his participation in Saturday’s demonstration near Chick-fil-A, 1051 Boardman-Poland Road. “I’m straight.”

The four took part in a three-hour protest near the eatery to denounce and call others’ attention to the position of Dan T. Cathy, the Atlanta-based fast-food chicken chain’s CEO, who has come under fire from some groups for remarks he made opposing such marriages and unions.

Several people staged a similar protest at the location Wednesday.

Carrying a sign that read “Chock-ful-a-Hate,” Barnes contended that Cathy “went beyond stating his beliefs” by giving money to groups that support homophobic views, including an organization deemed a hate group by the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center.

For the complete story, read Sunday's Vindicator or Vindy.com.


1georgejeanie(1487 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

I think you lbjt people are the haters. I do not care what you do, it is your business just do not try and push your values on me. Chick fil A has an outstanding product and the owner has just as much right to give his opinion as you do.

Suggest removal:

2CPRIDEM10(40 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Thank you georgejeanie!

Suggest removal:

3IslandMike(764 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Glad to have all you so called "CHRISTIANS" educate the rest of us on the fact that Jesus did NOT love everyone equally and that he hated sick people. That is why we must deny gays equal rights and deny poor people adequate health care. Thanks for letting us know that Jesus was NOT a healer of the sick and a HATER. Now make sure you look nice for church.

Suggest removal:

4RustOnMyBelt(172 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Did the ChicK-Fil_A CEO ever REFUSE service to any customers because of their self-all-defining sexual orientation, religion or race. No he did not. He IS allowed to voice his beliefs,opinion or stance on ANY topic. I am so tired of your trans-whatever thought police. Leave the man's fine business and the great product he provides alone. Get a life.

Suggest removal:

5greene(167 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Cue the Twilight Zone music, islandmike is thinking...

Suggest removal:

6Attis(1128 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" pretty much sums up what Jesus and his followers believe and do. And the union of a man and a woman as the only form of marriage since the beginning (check out Matthew 19) pretty much sums up the biblical stance on marriage as expressed by the founder of Christianity but not some of its deluded nominal adherents these days. Ever wonder why no culture, regardless of religion, in all human history ever accepted same-sex unions as marriages? And none ever will? Look into the eyes of child for the answer.

Suggest removal:

7IslandMike(764 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

BREAKING NEWS: The Bible has nothing to do with the US Constitution. Ever hear of free and equal? How about seperation of church and state? I love it when some idiot leaves his village to come out and say, "the Bible says this," as if the US Supreme Court makes decisions based upon biblical passages. Gays and lesbians have the right to get married whether the homophobes like it or not. People have the right to own guns whether the anti-gun folks like it or not. The Bible means NOTHING when it comes to the US Constitution and the decisions made by the Supreme Court. It's as insignificant as The Da Vinci Code, the Koran and Hustler.

Suggest removal:

8IslandMike(764 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Suggested readings: The Declaration of Independence, Preamble of the Constitution, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nowhere when studying law is the Bible used.

Suggest removal:

9WilliamSwinger(341 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago


Good job representing the "victim" crowd with your intolerant, bigoted hate speech. By the way, you need to go read our founding documents a little closer as well. You will find many Rights but none among them anything close to what you want. That is a fact and you are going to have to accept it. Freedom of speech, religion, bearing of arms, etc. There is nothing about your views there. And I would suggest that if you cannot respect the laws and traditions of this country, including the highest mandates in the most sacred of our documents, then maybe you should go be a part of a country that more closely holds your views because this one isn't it.

Suggest removal:

10Boardman120(82 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Wow! A group of 4 misinformed teenagers with poorly written signs warrants a half-page article with full-color photos in the Vindicator?
Vindy, whoever wrote this biased piece of garbage really needs to go back to journalism school.

Suggest removal:

11whitesabbath(738 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Drama queens and kings. Phuey !! This is not really any news at all.

Suggest removal:

12sanpac2003(16 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

IslandMike I love it!! I work with similar people who "preach" the Lord all the time and then throw rocks and hide their hands. Love who you love. Black, white, straight or gay, I have all of them in my family and love them equally. My mother always said.....don't say a word if it's not coming out wisely or nicely. Alot of readers should take that advice, And by the way, I chose my words wisely.

Suggest removal:

13sanpac2003(16 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

whitesabbath you are crazy LMAO!!!!!

Suggest removal:

14cambridge(4061 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Attis....You wrote "And the union of a man and a woman as the only form of marriage since the beginning (check out Matthew 19) pretty much sums up the biblical stance on marriage as expressed by the founder of Christianity but not some of its deluded nominal adherents these days."

Not true. If you bother to actually read the bible you know that Abraham, who is the first God revealed himself to had two wives and one of them was his sister. The great and wise King Solomon, one of God's favorites was known for his many wives and concubines.

Tell me again what God and your bible says about marriage.

Suggest removal:

15DAWABBIT(30 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

I am surprised that there isn't a lawsuit contemplated againgst Christians for the hateful destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Suggest removal:

16Attis(1128 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

cambridge...the most common form of marriage throughout human history was polygyny, practiced both by Solomon and Abraham and countless others before the reason for its existence (maximum procreation of children) vanished; Jesus, however, never endorsed any form of polygamy (and certainly not homosexuality or homosexual marriages) but clearly called for equality between husband and wife. Also, as a matter of undeniable fact, no society/culture in 50,000 years of human history ever permitted incest (Abraham was not married to his sister!) or ever accepted homosexual unions as marriages. Why do you think that is the factual case?

Suggest removal:

17IslandMike(764 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Adolf Hitler, Timothy McVeigh, Scott Nichols, Scott Roeder (BTK Killer), David Duke and Eric Rudolph were all CHRISTIANS.

The Bible means NOTHING when it comes to US laws. Get over all the HATE and face the FACTS that gays have as much right to marry as anyone else and there is NOTHING you (or the Chick-Hates-Gays CEO) can do about it. Quit trying to hide behind your so called CHRISTIANITY and face FACT that the Constitution is the document that molds US laws. The Bible is irrelevent.

Free and EQUAL for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual preference.

Suggest removal:

18cambridge(4061 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago


Suggest removal:

19cambridge(4061 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Attis....Sorry it didn't work the first time. I'll try again.


Suggest removal:

20Jerry(845 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

@ IslandMike

I'll agree that the Bible should not be used for making legal decisions, but I am not your side of this argument either.

What we are taliking about is the LEGAL definition of marriage, and the benefits/priveleges (not rights) that are bestowed on a marriage.

We can agree that anyone has the right to freely associate with anyone else of their choosing; however, benefits/privileges bestowed by SOCIETY on particular relationships defined by SOCIETY are a different matter. These financial benefits and incentives are obviously privileges and not rights, and there are several very clear pieces of evidence to substantiate this.

(1) The rights of one person do not diminish or infringe on the rights of another person. The financial benefits bestowed on marriage cost us money or, in other words, deprive us of property. No one has the RIGHT to deprive another of their property. We can allow others to have the privilege of benefitting financially at our expense, but only with consent in the form of legally enacted legislation (voting). Therefore, the financial benefits bestowed on marriage must be privileges, not rights.

(2) A viable option that could be considered would be for the State to eliminate the financial benefits bestowed on all marriages, and get out of the business of legally sanctioning marriages entirely. This is not what I would suggest, but I think we could agree that this is a viable option that the State could consider. If the benefits and incentives for marriage were a right, eliminating them could not possibly be a constitutional option. Since it is, the benefits bestowed on marriage must be privileges, not rights.

(3) Society has always set arbitrary criteria for determining who receives the privilege of other benefits, and who does not. People below some arbitrary income level receive welfare benefits, others do not. Veterans of military service receive veteran’s benefits, others do not. People with home mortgages get tax breaks on the interest, others do not. These are all examples of benefits extended as privileges, not as rights.

The legal discussion regarding marriage needs to remain centered on the privileges/benefits bestowed by SOCIETY on a particular type of relationship SOCIETY defines, which are clearly privileges and not rights.

Therefore SOCIETY should be able to define what a marriage is and what a marriage is not, as recognoized by the law. And our society has voted on this time & time again, and voted to keep the traditional definiton intact.

Suggest removal:

21justsayin(42 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Eat more chikin

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes