The problem is he was pro-gay marriage in 1996, turned anti-gay marriage but pro-civil union sometime after that, and is now being hailed for suddenly being pro-gay marriage again as if it's for the very first time. In this video he is kissing the ring of Rick Warren, who has said far more truly homophobic things than Dan Cathy - including comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality.

And he's still taking a chickenshit position because he may be against amending the constitution, but he wants to leave it up to the states. Well, if marriage is a civil right, then it's not the prerogative of the individual states to ban it anymore than it's the prerogative of the federal government to do so. As a guy who has made a career off of the fact that his dad was black, he should know that.

Yeah... if hey have a "youtube" debate again... i'd like to ask him this question.

"If you believe that gay marriage is a states right issue, does that also mean interacial marriage is a states right?  If not, what is the difference?"

I think that'd be the part where Predator drone makes an appearance.

His whole stance is so contrived. "I'm not in favor of amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, I'm not defending DOMA because a Republican group was about to get it thrown out I think it's unconstitutional, and things I believe are unconstitutional should be left up to the states." That just doesn't wash.

Put it this way, christians are against idolatry. Yet did they go out and push against temples and idol worship? No they did not. They taught people not to follow it, but they were not political about it (see Paul in athens acropolis). I don't know how much that applies here, but from what I understood from grassroots christianity, Christians are to live "peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and reverence", and as such be the change they want to see in the world. And if one man one woman marriage is their view of holiness, then all the power to them. However, nobody has any right to bash anybody for taking that view on life, it is their god-given right to their personal moral desire, and if companies can stand by LGBT right, then companies sure can stand by Christian rights.

All I ask for is complete fairness honestly.

God this has turned into a war-ground...

I bash sexism, racism and homophobia. I have every right in the world to bash and belittle backward beliefs.

And where has anyone demonstrated homophobia? Where has anyone showcased backward beliefs?

Traditional is different from backwards. One is against progression, the other (the former) may be for progression. Remember, I said I was for family values. In my view, that's progression compared to the mainstream culture of today, as fed by television nowadays.

Also, I can't help but to think you're insinuating that either I or OP has done any of which you're accusing. In such a case, for my case you'd be wrong. For OP, neither you nor I know since neither of us have any of the original comments or facts, so it's bad to jump to conclusions like you're doing, if you're talking about OP.

Again, opposing same-sex marriage denies human beings the same rights as everyone else. "Traditional" marriage doesn't exist anymore and hasn't existed in quite some time so I don't see why it can not be made more inclusive. Would Christ want people to deny same-sex marriage? Is that truly treating others as you would have them treat you? God forbid we have everybody receiving the same benefits, the same right to adopt, etc...

I am not sure where I stand on this issue. I believe that if a minister does not want to marry two people of the same sex it should really be left up to him and should NOT be seen as a violation of human rights, but a respect for the religious rights of the minister.

For people to encourage one-man-one-woman marriage in the same level of support as the same-sex marriage supporters is entirely within their right. It is their belief of what is right, and they are free to support it.

Does that mean they are to seek to amend a law to forbid people same-sex folk from getting married, it's a very tough question and  I don't think I'm the right person to answer this question but I'll try.

From what I understand from law and morality, is that law is the ship and morality is the rudder. Since christianity fundamentally teaches that homosexuality is amoral, the question is how is an individual to translate that into their political voice? As I meantioned earlier, in grassroots christianity the apostle Paul never seeked to have the idol worship abolished. That's because even though idolatry is considered amoral, scripturally, the apostle Paul wasn't politically inclined or involved. As christians should we follow Paul's example? I personally believe so. In other places scripture mentions that we are to lead by example and not by rule. So ultimately christians are mostly meant to live a grassroots lifestyle and affect change through influence imho.

As such, in the most christian scenario, the true offenders would be those pushing anti-christian values since christians would not fight back and would in essence have their rights oppressed, theoretically speaking. But those who actively oppose same-sex marriage are giving the anti-christian lobby a justification for existence imho. The real issue in this thread is not them, not chick-fil-A, nor I. The issue in this thread is you not seeing how the anti-christian lobby is behaving just as badly as those who oppose same-sex marriage, yet you support them.

That's what I despise of this democracy, and it's why I very much dislike your point of view. You're unfair to the religious community and as such, are behaving in favoritism, despite claiming anti-sexism, anti-racism and overall neutrality. Don't worry, I had the same problem with Sapphi Snake.

You seem to be under the impression that having the government recognize same-sex marriage means that they force people to perform same-sex marriages. This is not the case, at all. I can understand your concern now considering that you were misinformed. This pretty much renders the rest of the argument moot as nothing is being taken away from "Christians" and their rights are being left perfectly intact. Stop calling me unfair to the religious community, you're making a lot of baseless assumptions about me. I just want the big, obtrusive, totalitarian Church to stay out of government affairs and the lives of people who don't want their involvement. That's it, simple as that. No need for mislabeling me or making a little straw man to represent me.