Archived Story

Supporting Chick-fil-A

Published 10:24am Monday, August 27, 2012

To the Editor:

I commend Chick-fil-A for its family-oriented, Christian principles which govern its corporate business decisions. The remark that Dan Cathy offered that has caused some trouble for some was simply, “Well, guilty as charged,” when responding to the statement that some have opposed Chick-fil-A because of its support of the traditional family.

For those of us who support the definition of traditional marriage as between one man and one woman does not mean that we are mean-spirited or hatemongers. We simply choose to support the biblical understanding of marriage, as God ordained and established. I might remind you that in a recent vote by citizens of North Carolina, 61 percent of the voters supported the traditional, biblical view of marriage.

In Thadd White’s column, he mentioned that Jesus spoke and acted in love. When the woman who was caught in the very act of adultery was brought before Jesus, He wrote on the ground. Shortly thereafter, her accusers walked away. Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” Lovingly, he commanded her not to continue in her present lifestyle.

Which would be considered more loving – to warn someone of impending danger or to take care of them after they had hurt or injured themselves? Of course, the more loving of the two would be to warn someone. God does that in His word. He knows that certain things will lead to harm and troubles unless they are avoided. He lovingly warns of those dangers in His word.

Mr. Cathy and Chick-fil-A are right to govern the business using biblical principles. I am delighted to support Chick-fil-A. I only wish that Ahoskie had a Chick-fil-A that I could support.

 

Tommy Tripp

Colerain

  • Rhalas

    It cracks me up to hear people claim that they are against homosexuals having equal marriage rights based on “support the biblical understanding of marriage.” Have you read the bible? According the bible Wives are supposed to be subordinate to their husbands, marrying someone of another religion is forbidden, most marriages are arranged with little consent from the woman, and if a bride couldn’t prove she was a virgin she was stone to death. Concubines were also acceptable for Abraham, Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Caleb, Solomon and more. A man was free to completely acquire his wife’s property after marriage, including her slaves (slavery is also condoned according to the traditional values of the bible). Polygamy is also endorsed in many biblical families (Esau, Jacob, Ashur, Gideon, Soloman, Abijah, and Jehoram just to name few). According to the traditional definition of marriage based on the bible, a virgin must marry her rapist, and a slave owner is free to assign female slaves to male slaves, and the women are forced to submit to those assigned husbands.

    All of those things are what traditional, biblical definition of marriage constitutes. But guess what? We’ve grown as a society. We’ve learned from our mistakes. The parameters of what constitutes a marriage have widened in some areas and broadened in others. Do you just as fervently protest marriage between a black man and white woman? If a corporation spoke out against how all wives should be legally required to be subservient to their husbands or how marriage should be illegal between faiths, would you be writing opinion articles to support them? How about if they donated significant funds from your purchases to organizations that attempted to legally force raped virgins to marry their rapists? Would you be in a hurry to throw money at that company for supporting the biblical definition of marriage?

    It’s 2012. Is it too much to ask that we learn from our history, and start acting like it?

    Suggest Removal

Editor's Picks