An Open Letter to Chick-Fil-A Management (based on an actual letter sent to my local franchise):

Enclosed please find several coupons I was holding on to until I could have an opportunity to buy breakfast at your establishment, which I frequented for lunch.  However, given the recent events regarding the corporate view on same-sex unions and relationships, I can no longer spend my money on your business.  Please let me explain, as this isn’t just a media inflamed emotional act.

First of all, I applaud anyone, including Mr. Cathy, who lives by and expresses his beliefs, whatever they may be.  I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and therefore I do not take issue with any statements that have been made historically or recently by any member of Chick-Fil-A’s management team.

However, through the act of donating money to organizations with stated anti-gay missions it is clear that Mr. Cathy is going beyond speech and using corporate profits from my purchases to promote his agenda, which includes supporting organizations labeled as true hate organizations and specifically working to undermine our LBGT community.  Here are just a few examples of actions of one of them, the Family Research Council:

• As described on their website: "Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed.  It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.  While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in "marriage" constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures.”   
• They oppose the expansion of civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as illegal bases for discrimination.
• They are a member of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition formed to sponsor California Prop 8 to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples only, which passed in 2008.
• Their Sr. Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg stated that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced.
• FRC President Tony Perkins has repeatedly voiced the false association of gay men with pedophilia, saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children." The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting and the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals.  One need only look at the long time happily married “heterosexual” Jerry Sandusky scandal to realize pedophilia is a sickness unrelated to sexual orientation.

This is personal for me.  My 20 year old grandson is gay.  He is a fine upstanding young gentleman with more decency, tolerance and love in his heart for all kinds of people than any of these so-called “Christians” who work hard to distort and defame the message of Jesus Christ.  If one wants to refer to the Bible as a guide for acceptance of traditional marriage I ask you, which Biblical version of the marriages described below do you advocate?

• Polygamy? Jacob had two wives; Moses also had two wives; King David had seven wives; Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
• What about when a man dies without having a son? Deuteronomy 25:5-6 indicated that his brother must marry his widow and have children in his name.
• War and Pillaging? If a soldier was part of a conquest he could forcibly take a prisoner of war wife according to Deuteronomy 21:11-14.  Imagine if our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan held that Biblical view?
• Rape? If a man rapes a virgin then he has to marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), but I guess if he raped a non-virgin then no marriage necessary?  
• Or not marry at all as St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:32-25? 

This was all prescribed or condoned in the Bible although I doubt any of it would be permissible today.  Times evolve, cultural mores change over time to handle the circumstances the world creates.  The Bible should not and could not be taken literally for many instances of various forms of violent behavior that would be grossly illegal and unacceptable today.  The Bible was intended to be a guide, a story, a set of parables by which humans could determine how to live with, support and tolerate each other in a loving, nurturing way to ensure human survival.  

My grandson today, though far from perfect, embodies all the traits that Mr. Cathy would be proud to see displayed by any of his own children.  To deny him the right, when the time comes, to legally enter a long term loving relationship that harms no one, allowing him to be a happy, contributing member of society is as mortal a sin as I can think of, one which I hardly think Jesus Christ would condone.