I think this was more of a statement against the liberal media and politicians that attacked a whole company for an opinion given by it's president.

You think the liberals are upset about this? Just wait until they see the lines in November.

@C My thoughts exactly. It's not a stance against gay marriage, it is a stance FOR the right of Mr Cathy to express his opinion. Whether you agree with his opinion, you should be glad that he, as well as all americans, has a RIGHT to his opinion. He doesn't run his company in a way that negatively affects gays so why is it even an issue??? Did you see such an issue when Ben and Jerry's came out FOR gay marriage? Why not? Because conservatives believe in the RIGHTS of the individual as well as private companies.

I stood in line today for over an hour today to support the first amendment. Unfortunately in our society everyone has the freedom of speech except Christians. I will vote with my dollars at CFA and with my vote in November. And BTW, I still eat Ben & Jerry's ice cream and they are well known to support gay culture....guess what they have free speech too!

this was about freedom of speech!

I don't care, that chicken is so good I'd eat it with sweaty gay balls on my face!

Aren't we all offended by something? I think people need to learn to "get over it." It is refreshing to see someone stand for good values like Mr. Cathy. There are many more out there who are afraid to speak out.

Most everybody knows the Chick-Fil-A espouses Christian values, so it astounds me that what Mr. Cathy said actually surprised people. The liberal media made such a big deal about this, while also try to inflame people by making it sound like the company hates homosexuals, but now it has backfired. If they would have just left it alone as somebody expressing their opinion, Chick-Fil-A probably would not have sit records at it stores today.

Dang, a lot of fat people eat there.

I don't see anything in the bible about Adam and Steve or Emily and eve.

Do you see anything about Ruth and Naomi?

No , but I seen something about Sodom and Gohmora. Excuse the spelling.

The book of Ruth can be found in your old testament between the books of Judges and 1 Samuel. Surely your version hasn't omitted this book. Clearly it didn't omit Genesis, or at least the portion of Genesis that holds the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm curious how narrow your understanding is of this story. Although it is found in the book of Genesis, the cities and the sins of the people are mentioned in other books of the Bible too. Hopefully, these weren't excluded from your version too.

In the book of Ezekiel God describes some of the sins of the people of these cities by saying they were arrogant, overfed, unconcerned, not helpful to the poor and needy, haughty and did detestible things. The book of Jude talks about their sins of "fornication and going after strange flesh" and 2nd Peter talks about the "filthy conversation of the wicked". The final straw before their destruction is commonly understood to be when a group of homosexual men demanded that Lot allow them to have sex with his guests (who were Angels disguised as men). There is no suggestion that homosexual behavior was exhibited by EVERY person in these cities. There is, however, plenty of evidence that sins of all kinds were rampant.

Still, God told Abraham that he would save EVERYONE in these cities (homosexuals included) if he could find just 10 righteous people. REALLY?? God would have saved homosexuals? (woops, a bit of sarcasm slipped out there)