Best commentary I've read so far about the Chick-fil-a controversy

[Jenny in GA]

I saw this blog post on Facebook today, and it has been the closest thing I've read about this issue so far that I actually agree with.

I guess I'll let it speak for itself without my personal commentary. Just wanted to share.

 

PS - My apologies if this has been posted here already. I haven't been able to keep up with the numerous posts!!

[Annie G]

Thanks for posting- I need to send this both our oldest and youngest daughter, who are on complete opposite sides of this.

[jamajo]

I suppose discussion on the content in this article is too political for this forum.

[twinmami01]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

[Jenny in Florida]

That is a good one.

 

And it's worth clicking on the link to the information about the Family Research Council, too.

[foster_sk]

I read this the other day and loved it, too.

 

I also think it's interesting that both "Jenny in GA" and "Jenny in Florida" posted on this thread. LOL

[NASDAQ]

That is a very detailed attempt to speak to both sides of an issue.

 

I myself cannot get too excited about the beliefs of the person from whom I purchase my chicken sandwich. But I'm unprincipled and cheap :lol:

[jujsky]

The franchise owner of our local Chick-Fil-A is sponsoring a Gay Pride Fest! http://nashua.patch.com/articles/nashua-chick-fil-a-to-sponsor-nh-pride-fest?ncid=txtlnkuspatc00000003

 

I was going to boycott them, but there's no point now.

[hsbaby]

I won't go into my opinion on the whole thing, but I was stuck in INSANE traffic trying to get through town:glare: They had police cars directing traffic and everything. There were no protesters that I saw, just customers. I know it was a big thing in our local hs group to go support them today. And apparently they came out in droves. It was crazy. I, however, just wanted to get to Lowe's!!!

Edited August 1, 2012 by hsbaby

[MeaganS]

I had a friend post on Facebook who said, "All this talk about Chick-Fil-A is just making me hungry." That's about how I felt after watching Super-Size Me.

[Kathryn]

Thanks!

[Juniper]

I actually liked this one http://www.dennyburk.com/two-lies-about-chick-fil-a-perpetuated-in-the-media/

 

and this one http://www.getreligion.org/2012/07/wheres-the-beef-what-the-chick-fil-a-boss-really-said/

 

This whole thing is surreal, and I am very disappointed in many of the National news agency's. :glare:

[AngelBee]

I won't go into my opinion on the whole thing, but I was stuck in INSANE traffic trying to get through town:glare: They had police cars directing traffic and everything. There were no protesters that I saw, just customers. I know it was a big thing in our local hs group to go support them today. And apparently they came out in droves. It was crazy. I, however, just wanted to get to Lowe's!!!

 

In Georgia, my friend could barely get a sandwich! :lol:

[Juniper]

The franchise owner of our local Chick-Fil-A is sponsoring a Gay Pride Fest! http://nashua.patch.com/articles/nashua-chick-fil-a-to-sponsor-nh-pride-fest?ncid=txtlnkuspatc00000003

 

I was going to boycott them, but there's no point now.

 

Love it!

[Caraway]

 

I myself cannot get too excited about the beliefs of the person from whom I purchase my chicken sandwich. But I'm unprincipled and cheap :lol:

 

 

 

:smilielol5:

 

:iagree:

[*~Tina~*]

Enjoyed Chick Fil A for lunch today...it was hot, fresh, delicious and the service was amazing as usual. Very crowed, took a while...but worth the wait. :D

[Singingmom]

We are hoping to make it through the drive through for dinner! I am disgusted at the mainstream media, and certain politicians for misrepresenting Cathy's views, and for being so....intolerant:tongue_smilie: .

[Denise in Florida]

I thought the article was very thoughtfully written. It had a great point about differences of belief not meaning the other side is 'evil'.

 

I do believe in marriage equality. I also believe that once I have paid for my chicken nuggets it is no longer my money and they have the right to do what they want with it. I will probably exercise my right to eat elsewhere for a while. No need to call names or picket or harrass the kids that work there.

[Jenny in GA]

I also believe that once I have paid for my chicken nuggets it is no longer my money and they have the right to do what they want with it.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

Thank you; I was thinking that same thing a little while ago and had not heard anyone else verbalize it yet.

[dancer67]

The franchise owner of our local Chick-Fil-A is sponsoring a Gay Pride Fest! http://nashua.patch.com/articles/nashua-chick-fil-a-to-sponsor-nh-pride-fest?ncid=txtlnkuspatc00000003

 

I was going to boycott them, but there's no point now.

 

Love this!!!! Thanks for posting this link. It just goes to show that not ALL franchise owners hold the same views.

 

If some of my friends were not going to be out of town, they would be there.

 

Thanks so much for this post.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We are hoping to make it through the drive through for dinner! I am disgusted at the mainstream media, and certain politicians for misrepresenting Cathy's views, and for being so....intolerant:tongue_smilie: .

 

 

His views were not misrepresented. Not even close.

[4wildberrys]

I actually liked this one http://www.dennyburk.com/two-lies-about-chick-fil-a-perpetuated-in-the-media/

 

and this one http://www.getreligion.org/2012/07/wheres-the-beef-what-the-chick-fil-a-boss-really-said/

 

This whole thing is surreal, and I am very disappointed in many of the National news agency's. :glare:

 

Exactly! The media is fueling a Hate Fire that is unnecessary! It's so sad to see especially young people who have been trained to believe in 'tolerance' for all totally in favor of banning Chick Fil A. They don't get it! Tyranny is a gradual process, but the end result is VERY ugly :glare:

[Marylou]

Thanks for the link.

 

I think it is syrupy and condescending, especially the blog link. We hate pointless arguments that widen the gap and devalue real human people.

 

 

I don't think Jesus considered the true meaning of marriage "pointless" or an "argument".

 

Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Jesus

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Exactly! The media is fueling a Hate Fire that is unnecessary! It's so sad to see especially young people who have been trained to believe in 'tolerance' for all totally in favor of banning Chick Fil A. They don't get it! Tyranny is a gradual process, but the end result is VERY ugly :glare:

 

 

Where are all of these "young people" calling for the banning of CFA?

[pfamilygal]

This had me in tears: http://oddmanout.net/post/28484026012/chick-fil-activism

 

I have a huge problem with people saying gay marriage is a "threat" to their man-woman union. You know what the biggest threat to my marriage is? The fact that I am a desperate sinner, a broken person, and a terribly selfish narcissist. And so it my husband. We are a union of two depraved people trying to form one flesh and it often doesn't work.

[TravelingChris]

I didn't join the facebook movement but went to a Chick fil A today in a city I am visiting. Giant lines. Anyway, I am a freedom loving person. I am not saying you have to eat in Chick Fil A. Just like I don't have to shop somewhere else. But Cathay's remarks were not hate remarks, they were remarks that the vast majority of Americans believe according to the elections where traditional marriage has been affirmed in state after state.

[DianeW88]

That is a very detailed attempt to speak to both sides of an issue.

 

I myself cannot get too excited about the beliefs of the person from whom I purchase my chicken sandwich. But I'm unprincipled and cheap :lol:

 

:iagree: I don't care if you worship a head of purple cabbage, bray at the moon every night, and think dogs and cats should be allowed to legally marry, if hot and delicious waffle fries are involved. I'm an equal opportunity non-boycotter. :D

[Singingmom]

His views were not misrepresented. Not even close.

 

Did you read those articles? It is obvious he is not for same sex marriage, but what he said was simply a statement of who he is and what he and his company is about....he said nothing directly about gays. It seems it is inflammatory these days merely to be a Bible-Believing Christian.

[Sue G in PA]

Tyranny is a gradual process, but the end result is VERY ugly :glare:

 

:iagree: And THIS is the REAL issue. It's not about gay rights or gay marriage or gay anything. I supported CFA today b/c I support free speech and freedom of religion. Period.

[pfamilygal]

I think the kerfuffle was not JUST about his remarks (though he did say more than "I'm not in favor of gay marriage" - he said we shake our fist at God and invite judgement when we think we can redefine marriage.)

 

It is also about the fact that CFA donates money to groups that go way beyond strengthening traditional marriage. One of the groups teaches the homosexuality and pedophilia are nearly the same and that there is a big gay agenda out there to turn all our kids queer. So your CFA dollars are going to organizations that not only promote traditional man-woman marriage, but actively malign homosexuals as deviant human beings who are preying on your kids.

 

I can believe homosexual activity is a sin. I can teach my kids that if they have those desires they must be celibate and draw on Christ for strength. But I shouldn't ever slander homosexuals by assigning some malicious agenda to them or creating some imaginary predatory pedophilic tendency for every gay person.

[pdalley]

I think the kerfuffle was not JUST about his remarks (though he did say more than "I'm not in favor of gay marriage" - he said we shake our fist at God and invite judgement when we think we can redefine marriage.)

 

It is also about the fact that CFA donates money to groups that go way beyond strengthening traditional marriage.

 

There is no active discrimination going on in this case - they employ and serve people - regardless if they are one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters or whatever. I wish I knew when it suddenly became an offense worthy of a witch hunt to have a stupid opinion on something. There are plenty of people in the entertainment industry that I think have stupid opinions but hey - they have the right to be stupid - just like me. I'm sure they'd think my opinions are as stupid as I find theirs.

 

I'm going to keep my Iphone, my Imac and Macbook, and buy from Amazon - even though I know they donate money to things I never would. So what? I don't boycott. I don't have the time or the energy. I take people - and businesses as I find them. Unless they are actively engaged in discrimination or illegal activity then I will allow them to have whatever opinion they happen to have on any given subject.

 

I'm not buying their politics - I'm buying their product. Period.

[hsmamainva]

There is no active discrimination going on in this case - they employ and serve people - regardless if they are one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters or whatever. I wish I knew when it suddenly became an offense worthy of a witch hunt to have a stupid opinion on something. There are plenty of people in the entertainment industry that I think have stupid opinions but hey - they have the right to be stupid - just like me. I'm sure they'd think my opinions are as stupid as I find theirs.

 

I'm going to keep my Iphone, my Imac and Macbook, and buy from Amazon - even though I know they donate money to things I never would. So what? I don't boycott. I don't have the time or the energy. I take people - and businesses as I find them. Unless they are actively engaged in discrimination or illegal activity then I will allow them to have whatever opinion they happen to have on any given subject.

 

I'm not buying their politics - I'm buying their product. Period.

 

:iagree:

 

Pass around the Chicken Sandwiches! :D

[Jenny in Florida]

There is no active discrimination going on in this case - they employ and serve people - regardless if they are one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters or whatever. I wish I knew when it suddenly became an offense worthy of a witch hunt to have a stupid opinion on something. There are plenty of people in the entertainment industry that I think have stupid opinions but hey - they have the right to be stupid - just like me. I'm sure they'd think my opinions are as stupid as I find theirs.

 

I'm going to keep my Iphone, my Imac and Macbook, and buy from Amazon - even though I know they donate money to things I never would. So what? I don't boycott. I don't have the time or the energy. I take people - and businesses as I find them. Unless they are actively engaged in discrimination or illegal activity then I will allow them to have whatever opinion they happen to have on any given subject.

 

I'm not buying their politics - I'm buying their product. Period.

 

Again, though, it's not about having or expressing the opinion. It's about the fact that the company donates money to groups actively involved in putting down and squashing the civil rights of other people.

 

(The difference, by the way, in the cases of Amazon and the other companies you mentioned is that the donations to various causes have been made from the pocketbooks of the people who own/run the companies, rather than the companies' themselves. At least, that matters to me.)

 

Also, I'll just throw this out there, admitting up front that I haven't done a lot of research or verification. However, I read today that Chick-fil-a has been sued many times for discrimination by former employees. In fact, they are apparently being sued now for gender discrimination. I read that most (all?) of the suits have been settled out of court.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Jenny in Florida

[LucyStoner]

Did you read those articles? It is obvious he is not for same sex marriage, but what he said was simply a statement of who he is and what he and his company is about....he said nothing directly about gays. It seems it is inflammatory these days merely to be a Bible-Believing Christian.

 

I will say straight off that I don't support blocking CFA from an area based on te views of the founder. I will also say that while I get people can and do vote with their feet/dollars, I don't generally boycott places.

 

That said, you know who else are Christians? My brother and his husband. "Traditional marriage" is a code word for telling them that their 8 year, 2 daughter union does not deserve the same civil and legal recognition as my heterosexual marriage does. I have no issue calling that out as the hateful bias I see it to be. That does not make me anti-Christian. It makes me pro equal treatment under the law.

[I.Dup.]

"Traditional marriage" is a code word for telling them that their 8 year, 2 daughter union does not deserve the same civil and legal recognition as my heterosexual marriage does.

 

I believed this was a civil rights issue. But then I started hearing stories of Christian charities having to shut down because they wouldn't adopt out children to gay couples and churches being sued or forced to shut down because they wouldn't marry gays. Bakeries being put out of business because they wouldn't make a wedding cake for gays.

 

That sounds like a power issue to me, not a civil rights issue.

[Jenny in Florida]

I believed this was a civil rights issue. But then I started hearing stories of Christian charities having to shut down because they wouldn't adopt out children to gay couples and churches being sued or forced to shut down because they wouldn't marry gays. Bakeries being put out of business because they wouldn't make a wedding cake for gays.

 

That sounds like a power issue to me, not a civil rights issue.

 

I would love to see reputable sources for these stories. I keep hearing about the cases anecdotally, but I've never seen anything real.

[ElizaG]

Any article that cites the Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source goes straight into my mental circular file. That organization comes across as the political equivalent of the annoying Quackwatch medical site. The fact that they're against a certain group doesn't say anything to me, except that they disagree with that group's agenda (and vice versa).

 

And why do they feel so qualified to comment on issues that have nothing to do with "Southern," or "poverty," or sometimes even "law?" :001_huh:

 

(Argh, I just got past thinking about fried chicken, and now the word "Southern" is making me think of it again. Mmm, chicken. :))

[Lily_Grace]

I saw this blog post on Facebook today, and it has been the closest thing I've read about this issue so far that I actually agree with.

I guess I'll let it speak for itself without my personal commentary. Just wanted to share.

 

PS - My apologies if this has been posted here already. I haven't been able to keep up with the numerous posts!!

 

I found it skipped over the issues at heart. It's not that the Chick-Fil-A founder believes in a conventional (not biblical) family unit. It's that they use the company to donate money to groups that make statements such as:

 

"Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them."

 

"the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids."

 

This is NOT okay. At that point, it's not about believing in conventional marriage, it's about hurting those around you and sticking your nose in their bedroom. It's about using the dollars we use to support Chick-Fil-A to undermine the civil rights of millions. There is a big difference between support and attack, and Chick-Fil-A uses their money to attack.

 

 

For me, it would be no different than finding out McDonalds supports Stormfront.org, a neo-nazi group.

[I.Dup.]

I would love to see reputable sources for these stories. I keep hearing about the cases anecdotally, but I've never seen anything real.

 

Here's the one for the cake, I will try to find more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/jack-phillips-denver-bakery-gay-couple-wedding-cake_n_1721093.html

 

"We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, 'F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

[Singingmom]

I believed this was a civil rights issue. But then I started hearing stories of Christian charities having to shut down because they wouldn't adopt out children to gay couples and churches being sued or forced to shut down because they wouldn't marry gays. Bakeries being put out of business because they wouldn't make a wedding cake for gays.

 

That sounds like a power issue to me, not a civil rights issue.

 

Exactly! I worked for a foster care organization that was sued simply because they did not want to place children in homosexual homes. It was horrible. This was a Christian organization who was bullied for their beliefs.

 

If people don't think there is a strong political movement in our Country to force even religious groups to accept and condone homosexual activity, or have legal consequences, then they are living in some kind of naive world all their own.

[LucyStoner]

I believed this was a civil rights issue. But then I started hearing stories of Christian charities having to shut down because they wouldn't adopt out children to gay couples and churches being sued or forced to shut down because they wouldn't marry gays. Bakeries being put out of business because they wouldn't make a wedding cake for gays.

 

That sounds like a power issue to me, not a civil rights issue.

 

Total red herrings.

 

If my brother's partner dies, he gets no survivors benefits and there are states where gay parents have no legal right to their kids.

 

In states with legal gay marriage, there are no churches that have been forced to marry anyone. That freedom is written right into the laws. No bakeries have closed over cakes (lost business? Sure. I would not buy a cake from a bakery that would not take my brothers money same as mine.)

 

My nieces are less protected by the law as it stands than my sons. That is unacceptable to me. I reckon if you had 2 little nieces you would not think it right for them to be treated worse than your children. I do not care if people find it offensive to be asked to explain what precisely makes my nieces less worth the laws' protection than my sons. Or what makes it ok for a kardashian to marry for 7 nanoseconds but not ok for my brother to marry his partner of 8 years. What degrades the family more? Not my SAHD brother in a long term partnership, lovingly nurturing 2 amazing daughters.

[Jenny in Florida]

Here's the one for the cake, I will try to find more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/jack-phillips-denver-bakery-gay-couple-wedding-cake_n_1721093.html

 

"We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, 'F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

 

Okay . . . where does it say either bakery was "put out of business?" From what I can tell reading this brief article, no one was sued. No one was forced into bankruptcy. No one was jailed. The owners made decisions, which they have a right to do. People didn't like those decision, which is also their right. And?

[Jenny in Florida]

In states with legal gay marriage, there are no churches that have been forced to marry anyone. That freedom is written right into the laws.

 

Exactly. Churches have the right to set their own requirements regarding who will or will not be married there.

 

Catholic churches won't allow people who've been divorced to be married there.

 

Some denominations require both parties to be members or that they can prove they have been baptised in that faith.

 

Others require pre-marital counseling.

 

Heck, just this week some predominantly white church refused to allow a black couple to be married there.

 

Clearly, there are pretty serious protections for churches.

[I.Dup.]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/requirement-to-consider-gay-couples-for-adoption-forces-illinois-catholic-charities-affiliates-to-close/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/illinois-catholic-chariti_n_1093649.html

"Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society described the "dismantling" of the charities' foster care ministry as "a tragic end to 90 years of foster care service by some of the most effective child welfare agencies in Illinois."

 

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41680

 

"Some believe that the new civil unions law will not effect religious organizations such as the Catholic Church. And some homosexual advocates are claiming that the Church's decision to shut down its adoption and foster care services is a sign of intolerance. But when a bill, SB 1123, was proposed to amend certain language in the law in order to protect religious liberty, the amendment was attacked by homosexual activists and defeated by one vote.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. Catholic services in other states have also been forced to shut down. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. was forced to shut down their foster care and public adoption program due to a law recognizing same-sex marriage that went into effect in 2010. The law requires that religious organizations serving the general public must provide services to homosexuals regardless of their religious beliefs. District lawmakers could have granted an exemption to the archdiocese, but they chose to force it to compromise Church teaching on marriage or shut down its programs. In a Catholic News Agency article, Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, said, "Archbishop Wuerl [of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C.] isn't about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program."

Something similar also happened in the state of Massachusetts. Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down unless it agreed to place children with homosexuals. New state licensing laws in 2006 required that Catholic agencies facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples. According to an article by Father Robert J. Carr, in a joint statement, bishops from four Catholic dioceses in Massachusetts said, ". . . if Catholic agencies were required to help same-sex couples adopt children in violation of church teaching prohibiting the practice it would present 'a serious pastoral problem' and threaten religious freedom."

Apparently, this has also happened in England and Wales. Marianne Medlin writes, "Last August, a local commission ruled that the last remaining agency, Catholic Care, was not justified in its refusal to place children with same-sex couples because of its religious beliefs."

[Spy Car]

Chick-fil-a has a long and well documented history of discriminating against both franchisees and employees. The company investigates both to see if they are married conservative Christians (preferably with children) and if not the chances of getting a franchise or a job are slim.

 

Non-Christians, including Muslims, who have (against all odds) gotten a job have been forced to participate in Christian prayer and lost their jobs if they refused. The company has been sued many times for discrimination.

 

The idea that Chick-fil-a doesn't actively discriminate is dead wrong. The discrimination is endemic and long-standing. It has been going on since way before this current scandal.

 

Chick-fil-a actively promotes hated and bigotry. The blog article is unpersuasive in trying to sweep these facts under the rug.

 

Bill

[I.Dup.]

Total red herrings.

 

 

Red herrings, really? :001_huh: Bringing up the fact that religious freedom may be (and is, apparently) being threatened because of this issue? That is a real consequence to this issue that should be considered, please do not patronize me.

[LucyStoner]

Here's the one for the cake, I will try to find more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/jack-phillips-denver-bakery-gay-couple-wedding-cake_n_1721093.html

 

"We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, 'F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

 

 

If you went into a cake shop and tried to order a cake for your child's baptism and the store owner said " hold up, this cake is for an infant baptism? Well, now just don't believe in that", you would walk out and might even let others like you know to steer clear. That is perfectly ok. As is what the folks in this link did. When my brother and his husband have dealt with nastiness in commercial settings, they complain. Just the same as I would if someone was rude to me for being a straight married mom.

[LucyStoner]

Red herrings, really? :001_huh: Bringing up the fact that religious freedom may be (and is, apparently) being threatened because of this issue? That is a real consequence to this issue that should be considered, please do not patronize me.

 

You mentioned things that have not actually happened and are not a consequence of equal marriage laws. That would be the definition of a red herring. Your religious freedom does not get to extend into my brothers' freedom to do something that has no impact on you in the least.

[PeacefulChaos]

Hmmm... It really seems like this conversation (what it has turned into, anyway) was just had recently...

 

I'm beginning to get bored with the whole CFA thing.

It's funny, though - I didn't hear huge rallies to boycott them before the CEO said what he said. They supported the causes before that. They have always been well known as Christians (the CEO's family). The restaurant is closed on Sundays - Idk, I just don't see why these comments caused such a huge uproar. They shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone, IMO. :)

And I'm also for not including politics in food. I really don't care. I had never even heard of the JCP thing - people didn't buy from there because Ellen was their spokeswoman or something? Did they refuse to buy Cover Girl makeup, too? :lol: Do they watching Finding Nemo? I mean, really? I said it in the last thread and I'll say it here, too - people are just boycott happy, I think. :tongue_smilie:

Welcome to the US! Boycott and Sue anyone you like!

I honestly don't know why it's so fascinating to others to be all up in the personal lives of everyone else.

[LucyStoner]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/requirement-to-consider-gay-couples-for-adoption-forces-illinois-catholic-charities-affiliates-to-close/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/illinois-catholic-chariti_n_1093649.html

"Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society described the "dismantling" of the charities' foster care ministry as "a tragic end to 90 years of foster care service by some of the most effective child welfare agencies in Illinois."

 

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41680

 

"Some believe that the new civil unions law will not effect religious organizations such as the Catholic Church. And some homosexual advocates are claiming that the Church's decision to shut down its adoption and foster care services is a sign of intolerance. But when a bill, SB 1123, was proposed to amend certain language in the law in order to protect religious liberty, the amendment was attacked by homosexual activists and defeated by one vote.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. Catholic services in other states have also been forced to shut down. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. was forced to shut down their foster care and public adoption program due to a law recognizing same-sex marriage that went into effect in 2010. The law requires that religious organizations serving the general public must provide services to homosexuals regardless of their religious beliefs. District lawmakers could have granted an exemption to the archdiocese, but they chose to force it to compromise Church teaching on marriage or shut down its programs. In a Catholic News Agency article, Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, said, "Archbishop Wuerl [of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C.] isn't about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program."

Something similar also happened in the state of Massachusetts. Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down unless it agreed to place children with homosexuals. New state licensing laws in 2006 required that Catholic agencies facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples. According to an article by Father Robert J. Carr, in a joint statement, bishops from four Catholic dioceses in Massachusetts said, ". . . if Catholic agencies were required to help same-sex couples adopt children in violation of church teaching prohibiting the practice it would present 'a serious pastoral problem' and threaten religious freedom."

Apparently, this has also happened in England and Wales. Marianne Medlin writes, "Last August, a local commission ruled that the last remaining agency, Catholic Care, was not justified in its refusal to place children with same-sex couples because of its religious beliefs."

 

This has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is about a religious organization being contracted to provide public adoption services with state dollars and being told that the acceptance of state funding means compliance with existing state discrimination laws.