Search this blog

If you’re like me, you’re weary of the excessive politicization of nearly everything in American culture.

Can’t we just enjoy Oreo cookies without making a statement about gay rights? Or savor a chicken sandwich without fear of being labeled a hater or homophobe?

Though I’m weary of our culture’s tendency to politicize everything, I believe this Chick-fil-A boycott has revealed some fault lines in our culture that will lead to increasing pressure upon Christians who uphold the sexual ethic described in the New Testament. Furthermore, in listening to the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, it’s clear to me that – political posturing aside – this discussion may not be about the alleged homophobia of Chick-fil-A’s president but the actual Christophobia of the leaders of the cultural elite.

Christophobia? Isn’t that a strong word? Yes, it is. So let’s define our terms.

First, let’s define homophobia. According to the Anti-Defamation League, homophobia is “the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility.”

Consider the comments made by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy that triggered this escapade:

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

That’s it. Cathy said, basically, “We believe in the traditional family.” In context, it appears he was speaking primarily about divorce. (What’s next? A sit-in protest led by divorcees?) But this was enough to bring down the wrath of gay-rights advocates upon Cathy and the company.

Though Chick-fil-A hires homosexuals and serves homosexuals (“with pleasure,” no doubt), the company and its president were suddenly labeled “homophobic” and “anti-gay” for articulating the traditional vision for marriage that has been the norm for thousands of years. If the word homophobic has any meaning, then we should reserve it for egregious offenses against homosexuals – not throw the label on anyone who has a conviction about what marriage is.

Now let’s define Christophobia. It is “anti-Christian sentiment expressed as opposition to Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity.” When the mayors of prominent U.S. cities in the north and west told Chick-fil-A they would not be welcome there, they were making a statement that goes beyond one’s position on gay rights. These remarks were an example of social ostracism – not just toward those who hold to traditional views on marriage but especially Christians who hold these views and seek to practice their religion accordingly.

Why do I think they were singling out Christians? Why would this be an example of Christophobia?

Consider a different scenario. What if Dan Cathy were a Muslim? What if he had been a Muslim speaking to an Islamic news organization when he said something about marriage and family? Would there have been an outcry against his organization? It’s doubtful. I can’t imagine Rahm Emanuel taking on a prominent, well-respected Muslim businessman, no matter what he would say about marriage and sexuality. (Perhaps that’s why Emanuel has no problem partnering with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan – an outspoken critic of gay marriage – in a crime-reducing initiative.)

And therein lies the discrimination. Do you see the double standard? Those who are problematic, those who must be shut down and made to feel unwelcome, are not really the people who believe in traditional marriage but conservative Christians who seek to practice the tenets of their faith in the public sphere.

What we are seeing today is a massive cultural shift that permits leaders to label Christians as intolerant and bigoted simply for expressing their views about how society should function. But strangely enough, the same social ostracism and cultural condescension are not extended to Muslims and faithful adherents to other religions. No, the prejudice appears to be directed toward Christians who dare to speak publicly about their deeply held religious convictions.

That’s why, at the end of the day, this conversation isn’t really about marriage, gay rights, or restaurant permits. It’s not about the cultural divide between north and south, liberal and conservative.

It’s about Jesus. It’s about the radical sexual ethic He put forth in His teaching – a moral zealousness that hits our current culture’s sexual permissiveness head-on. And it’s about His forgiveness offered to all sexual sinners, so long as we agree with Jesus about our sin and embrace Him instead.

As weary as we may be of the culture wars, the Chick-fil-A controversy is a harbinger of further ostracism to come. In the United States, the words of Jesus are coming to pass for those who hold tightly to His vision of sexuality: You will be hated because of Me. 

So how should we respond? We’ve got to go beyond boycotts and political statements and feigned offense at perceived persecution. We’re called to love those who ostracize us, not boycott back. So let’s trumpet the message that Jesus is for all kinds of sinners, from the self-righteous deacon to the promiscuous transsexual, no matter what kind of vitriol comes our way.

The world tells homosexuals, “It gets better.” The church tells homosexuals, “Jesus is better.”

And that is why this boycott is really about Him.

View Comments


316 thoughts on “Why the Chick-fil-A Boycott is Really about Jesus”

  1. Classic. I’ve got a very similar article coming out next week entitled “Evangelicaphobia” – so I’m both applauding the article, and expressing mild irritation that you posted this first! :)

  2. Ray H. says:

    With all due respect, I completely disagree with your approach of appealing to the “persecuted” ethos–it has always stuck me as odd and unconvincing when Christians try to play the victim card. We are not victims in this country. You only need to a small step back to see how Christianity is still very much THE privileged religion. As for the Islam comment? We still wouldn’t elect Muslim president; Michele Bachmann just accused the government of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists; and we almost didn’t even let some nice Muslims build a community center two blocks away from ground zero. Talk about Islamophobia.

    Was the quote taken out of context? Sure, but my atheist/agnostic friends, who aren’t really boycotting Chick Fil-A, just tell me they feel uncomfortable knowing that their money is actively being channeled into organizations that they feel discriminate against homosexuals, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I’ve never gotten a sense that it was “Christophobia” and I don’t think it’s right to reduce this issue into an “us and them” binary. The victim/victimizer dynamic is far more complex than you seem to give it credit for.

    1. E. B. Fahnestock says:

      Gracious and unoffensive. A small step back, as one commentator suggested, will undoubtedly allow us to see the privileges Christians have enjoyed in the past three centuries. Evidently the same step back doesn’t guarantee all of us will see the relentless trend of increased opposition to Christians that marks the present.

      1. PJ says:

        Thousands and thousands being killed, driven from their homes, and hung on crosses is really “priviledged.”

    2. mel says:

      With all due respect, you are just wrong. I suppose it will take physically killing people in the US for their faith in Jesus before some of you will be able to see what is happening. Even then I suspect that some will still find a reason that it would be the dead person’s fault.

      When businesses are run out of town or kept out of town because the owner is a believer then how can that be seen as anything other than persecution?

      1. JellyJam says:

        How is Ray H. wrong? In this country, Christianity is the privileged religion. No one is persecuted, hurt, denied rights because of their Christian beliefs, and that should be a right that all Americans have regardless of their beliefs. It’s when those Christian beliefs infringe on the rights and privileges of others (marriage, employment, housing, adoption, citizenship, etc.), that there is a problem.

        No one is telling Christians what to believe, but if you publicly make statements that customers don’t agree with, the customers have a right to not buy your products. If you take profits from a business supported by those customers and use it to fund organizations they don’t support, then those customers have the right to boycott.

        1. Kevin says:

          you missed the point jellyjam.

        2. Mel says:

          Of course they have the right to. No one is saying they don’t.

        3. AmberA says:

          You say that “No one is persecuted, hurt, denied rights because of their Christian beliefs”, but the whole point is that the mayors of Chicago and Boston tried to/threatened to do just that to Chic-Fil-A because of their Christian beliefs. They have been known to both serve and hire homosexuals. It was not because of actions, but only beliefs. I also don’t agree with the statement “It’s when those Christian beliefs infringe on the rights and privileges of others (marriage, employment, housing, adoption, citizenship, etc.), that there is a problem.” You are equating belief with action. Honestly, I can believe whatever I want. It is when ACTIONS, not beliefs, infringe on others rights that there is a problem. Stating your beliefs does not infringe on anyone’s rights. Absolutely, if consumers do not like the beliefs supported by a company, then they can spend their dollars elsewhere. But let’s not pretend that stating your beliefs infringes on anyone’s rights. Not allowing a private citizen to express their belief and persecuting them for doing so (not matter how mild the persecution may be) does infringe on that person’s rights.

          1. Carl Westphal says:

            WRONGO. Donating millions of dollars in company profits to fund legally-classified hate groups that prop up phoney anti-gay research is an action, not a belief.

            FURTHERMORE. I’m pretty sure that the mayors know they don’t have any legal ground to stand on. Everyone knows that. But they can incite the people in their cities to boycott the restaurants (for this man’s ACTIONS), making the working environment unfriendly. Which, as responsible public servants, is exactly what they should do.

          2. Sara B. says:

            AmberA, the problem is that these particular beliefs are part of a larger debate in which Christians actively are trying to keep gay and lesbian Americans from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual partners.
            “Persecution” is a bit of a strong word here for critics of Chick-Fil-A…could you not say that Christians are “persecuting” gays and lesbians at the voting booth?

          3. Deborah B. says:

            Amber A, you said it. The boycott was incited by his comment, which was a belief protected by our First Amendment. Boycott’s are totally legal and fine, but threatening to take legal action for someone’s opinion or what they legally choose to support with their money is just plain discrimination.
            Carl, I don’t know what you mean by phony research or if you have actually even read the research reports (not just a journalists interpretation) but there is plenty of valid research out there supporting the traditional family (by the way the traditional family does not include blended families… hmmmm)
            And wait a second, you’re saying that responsible public servants should incite people to make the working environment unfriendly for others? I’m not even going to touch that one. You discredited yourself there without my help…
            Sara, voting does not count as persecution. If that were the case then every person who has even voted is guilty of persecution. Slander and libel are different. And marriage is a privilege not a basic human right. Everyone is legally free to have physical relations with whoever the heck they want except in cases that would be considered incest. Which reminds me… people related by blood or marriage are not allowed to marry.

          4. Phil says:

            Deborah B.

            Without responding to everything you raise, there is one thing you say that is simply wrong.

            Marriage is not a “privilege.” It is a right protected by the constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court specifically found this to be the case in Loving v. Virigina, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

        4. mel says:

          The scary thing is that only Jesus can heal that kind of blindness. Trying to explain it again will do no good.

          1. Joel B says:

            Several people have commented along the lines that somehow the homosexuals are being denied the same rights that everyone else has. This line of reasoning is 100% wrong. Gays have the exact same rights that heterosexuals have. Gays can marry another person, of the opposite gender, of appropriate age, who is a human, who is not already married to someone else. What the gay community wants is not the same rights that everyone else has, they want a NEW right. No one has the “right to marry the one they love” (as it is often put) because that loved one may be a dog, a child, or already married.

            Laws against gay marriage do not make equal rights, they make a NEW right.
            Why not make a new right for someone to marry their car?

          2. Phil says:

            Joel B,

            People have the right to marry the “person” they love. Not the “one” they love.

            Also, heterosexuals do not have the right to marry a dog, or a child, or someone already married. Nor do homosexuals.

            This is about equal rights, not new rights.

        5. Von says:

          Christians aren’t being denied rights?? Then please tell me why Christian prayer was taken out of schools? But if you permitted a Muslim child from praying in school you’d probably have a huge law suit. You can’t have a bible in school, but you sure can bring your Koran or Torah. You are not permitted to talk about jesus in class discussions, but you may discuss the Dali lama, muhammaed, or whoever else you please. You also can’t have Jesus as your liscense plate (no amount of money will permit it). A former science teacher of mine who graduated from top schools and is an extremely accomplished scientist, now teaches at a private high school instead of having a distinguished career as a scientist because she hated the discrimination she received as a professed Christian in the science world. This is really just the teeny tiny tip of the iceburg. Our current culture hates Christians and does’nt try to hide it.

          1. CJ says:

            Von, these arguments are tired and false. There is NOTHING prohibiting an individual from practicing his or her private beliefs in a public institution. Christian prayer wasn’t “taken out of schools.” Its exclusionary and preferential promotion should’ve never been there in the first place.

            There’s nothing prohibiting a student praying prior to school, before a meal in the lunchroom, or for added strength before an exam. Real persecution would mean that a student caught praying would be reprimanded, expelled, insulted publicly, etc. Present me an example of that happening. (Actually, REAL persecution would manifest as the student being dragged by the hair from the classroom and stoned to death on the playground.)

            The issue that myopic Christians perpetuating this argument fail to comprehend (and I used to be one perpetuating it) is that schools funded from taxes of all Americans must represent and serve all Americans. How hard is that to understand? Christians cry persecution because they are being asked to keep their beliefs private and not publicly endorsed by teachers, staff, school boards, etc. Boo hoo. It’s not a right that you get to lead everyone in YOUR prayers, in YOUR tradition, in YOUR belief of how the world works.

            What rights are you really being denied? Really?

      2. asal cliste says:

        Persecution? or justice?

    3. Chris Julien says:

      Hey Ray H.,

      The only thing that concerns me is that when the owner of Chick-fil-A shares his personal views and belief on marriage, it’s seen as “discrimination” against homosexuals. That’s an unwarranted leap in the logic, and I think it’s one of the main evidences for the shifting tide of intolerance toward the Christian faith here in America. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

      God bless.

      1. Aaron Carr says:


        In one respect you’re right. Mr. Cathy did express his personal opinion. But the leap is not so much from Mr. Cathy to discrimination (it seems more like he’s a lightning rod for a controversy that’s been boiling for a long time), but rather from the fact that Chic-fil-a funnels small chunk of their corporate profits into organizations like the Family Research Council. Say what you will about the “biblical-ness” of gay marriage, but the Family Research Council actively spreads misinformation and hate about the LGBTQ community (Tony Perkins compared them to terrorists last year). In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center has gone so far as to label the FRC a “hate group” by their standards. You’re right, blaming it all on Truett Cathy’s interview with the Baptist press is silly and uncalled for, but for those who support the LGBTQ community (or the use of substantiated evidence in making claims), there is a lot of room for concern.

        1. Carl Westphal says:

          Thank you, Aaron – could not have said it better myself.

          The author of this article needs to do some research. The quote provided is not the one people find troublesome. When people asked Chick-Fil-A’s CEO if he was anti-gay rights, he responded, “Guilty as charged.” There’s a difference between being a Christian and being proclaimedly anti-gay rights while funneling money to a group that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group (Family Research Council) from company profits. In this day and age, if someone said s/he was anti-black rights while funneling millions of dollars a year into eugenics to show that blacks are not as good as whites, s/he would be run out of business.

          This has nothing to do with whether Chick-Fil-A’s CEO has the right to his own views. Sure, he does. But publicly proclaiming hate is not something that is tolerated in America, and if you engage in hateful, discriminatory speech, be prepared to deal with the cultural backlash.

          Finally, whoever made the comment earlier about Muslims never being persecuted in the public sphere – did you hear the tripe that Michele Bachmann spouted about Hillary Cliton’s aide?

          1. JAW says:

            Ok…first whether you agree or disagree with what’s been said by Mr. Cathy, let’s check our facts! First, it’s Truett Cathy’s son…Dan, not Truett, who made the comments…and secondly, if you read the primary source…homosexuality is NEVER mentioned! Mr. Cathy never responded “Guilty as charged” to whether or not he was “anti-gay.” The author of the original story never even asked him about his stance on homosexuality…instead, he simply asked about his stance on “traditional marriage.”
            True…a foundation set up by Truett Cathey and his wife supports organizations that oppose homosexuality and I guess you could draw the conclusion that company profits go to fund that foundation (disclaimer: I don’t know for certain if the Chick-fil-A corporation funnels profits into that foundation or not) and true…both Misters Cathey have spoken out against homosexuality in the past, however, in the interview that has started the fire storm, homosexuality or gay marriage where not mentioned…not even implied. I have my own opinions on the situation and all are intitled to his/her own opinions and beliefs…but please, in all instances, find the primary source and educate yourself to the facts before you share those opinions with others!!

            God bless all!! :)

          2. @ Carl Westphal,

            Your characterization of Mr. Cathy’s remarks is demonstrably false. You said “When people asked Chick-Fil-A’s CEO if he was anti-gay rights, he responded, “Guilty as charged.””
            In fact, he was asked if he was in support of traditional marriage.
            This is yet more evidence of what the Apostle Paul says that homosexuality is about in Romans 1 : the suppression of the truth.

          3. Mr. Need to Know says:

            Carl Westphal,

            Nation of Islam rethoric of hate speech is all over the USA, namely, they hate whites, Christians, and gays, but there is no culture backlash on these issues, why? if there would be a backlash 3 cards will be played hard 1. Freedom of Speech card, 2. Islamophobe card, 3. Racist card.

            You guys do not have the courage and have no card bigger then them they will prevail and take you all the way to the Supreme Court. Therefore the Bleeding Hearts of America will shut down Christians because they are more passive and do not have strong cards to play.

            Our Country is falling apart because of liberalism ideology, all out and cause segregation by labeling groups.

            Haters, Islamophobe, Racist, Evil Capitalism, Mongols, Homophobe, etc… All these and many more cards are played by the politicians through the dumb down indoctrinated Socialist/Communist leftists. Quit calling each other names and unite as one nation and fight for our freedom as a whole.

          4. David N. says:

            @Mr. Need to Know “Nation of Islam rethoric of hate speech is all over the USA, namely, they hate whites, Christians, and gays, but there is no culture backlash on these issues, why?”

            The difference is that, because there are so many more Christians than Muslims in this country, there are less people saying these kinds of hateful things under the guise of Islam than Christianity; and bigoted speech is widely condemned by Muslim groups in this country, rather than endorsed by them.

          5. Dan says:

            @David N — The Islam religion says that homosexuals should be killed either by stoning, throwing off of a high place, or by fire. But no, you’re right. The Christians are the ones who, by virtue of siding with the “traditional family,” are the hateful ones. Do your research.

          6. David N. says:

            @Dan – It would be easy to say that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share those kinds of barbaric rules (because those rules all come from largely the same source).

            BTW – I think if you reread what I wrote, you’ll see that I wasn’t condemning either Islam or Christianity, but interpretations of either that promote hate and violence.

        2. Carolyn says:

          Most of you don’t have your facts straight at all. It wasn’t even Truett Cathy who was interviewed. It was his son, Dan. Dan never used the words, gay, homosexual or anything close. He said he believed in the biblical definition of marriage. Sorry but none of us can change the Bible. It is what it is!!! They donate money to family organizations, which just happens to be anti gay because two men or two women canNOT make babies. If the gays want to boycott Chick Fil A, then they better do their homework and also boycott Apple, Windows, Wal Mart just to name a few. Guess you better sell your computer! There are several gay people that work at CFA where I live. I have NEVER seen anyone be mean or disrespectful to them. In fact, they were working there TODAY!!! And the gays need to read the NEW Testament and quit trying to shove Leviticus down our throat.

        3. Jonathan says:

          Hard to believe anyone actually takes anything from the Southern Poverty Law Center seriously anymore. They too have their own biases and a list of Christian “enemies” a mile long.

          The SPLC constantly attacks Christians for holding Biblical views. Always calling them haters. Check out this article from a year ago – BEFORE this current controversy popped up. The SPLC attacks any organization that stands up for Biblical values.

          Trevin Wax was quite correct in this article to say this is not about sex, it’s about Jesus. Because when you follow Jesus and his moral code you will be labeled a hater by those who hate Him.

          1. Phil says:

            The SPLC doesn’t “attack” any organization BECAUSE it stands for Biblical values.

            It “attacks” organizations that lie. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with standing up for Biblical values, just don’t use lies in support of those values.

            Seems reasonable to me.

      2. PJ Petrillo says:

        I agree with Chris! It seems acceptable to persecute Christians in America now, but if anybody even tried to do that to a more radical faith, well GOD help us all and the attacks that would come. And this whole mess of certain groups having their rights protected but others should not be, is getting WAY out of hand. I had the most racially diverse organization in my company which included multi-nationalities when it was unpopular, gays and a lesbian, as well as an atheist. I practiced love and fair treatment and practices to ALL, and required equal benefits, rights, and treatment for each one. The only intolerance I had was to anyone who treated them otherwise. So let’s take a good look at prejudice or is it only prejudice if someone disagrees with how YOU see it??? I taught diversity training. But I can’t start a TV network called “White” Entertainment Network, I can’t have a college scholarship fund called the American “Caucasion” League, I am penalized and pay more in my taxes because I am married than my counter parts who live together and are unmarried. As a “white” person I am blamed continuoussly for slavery and my relatives immigrated here after slavery, which I think is an atrocity, but because I am white it is ASSUMED I am responsible, and racism towards me is acceptable. I was paid less as a woman administrator than the male administrators. I was told I could not have any symbols or clothing of my faith in the workplace, but I was required to allow another person of faith to alter our uniforms with headgear representing their faith, which was a protected faith. My faith was not. So WHO is being treated unfairly???

        1. Von says:

          The white entertainment network bit made me laugh… White people should be allowed to have white pride without being persecuted (and I say this as a black person). But all you said is so true. Christian kids can’t bring their bible or pray in school, but a school wouldn’t dare tell a devout Muslim child (or any other faith for that matter) he or she was not allowed to prayer.

    4. I agree with Mel.
      To be a Christian is to agree with the Apostle Paul in Romans 1.
      If you agree with the Apostle Paul, you will be persecuted.
      I personally over-heard an evangelical give the most humble, sensitive and kind presentation of the gospel to a homosexual young man on the campus of a nearby college. But because the evangelical echoed the teaching of the Bible, he and the church he was from are banned from the campus of that college. That’s reality in modern America.

      1. kate says:

        and we should not expect anything different. We have chosen to die with Christ, this means we will be persecuted and things will NOT be just. Jesus showed very clearly what should be done when we are persecuted, as he went to the cross. I don’t remember him anywhere in the gospels, as he was handed over to be killed, saying “wait, this isn’t right, do you see how illogical what you are doing is? I’m sticking up for my rights!”

        We live in a global society, not a Christian society. And don’t expect that to change. As Christians, our biggest concern should be to keep the widening gap between Christians and the world as small as possible – while not compromising – so that we might save some.

        1. Trudy says:

          Thank you for your post, well said and oh so true, and i would love to hear more discussion and concern about the gap being created/widening. How can we serve our communities and fellow man with this gap?

    5. Mart says:

      I am a Christian and an American. In fact, by most standards, I am a liberal/progressive Christian. While I seldom feel like I’m in the majority, even within Christian circles, much less broader culture, I in no way feel persecuted or victimized. This characterization by Christians (of any variety) in America is, in my estimation, degrading to those who truly ARE persecuted around the world for all sorts of faith and for those who have “gone before us” who lost citizenship, family, and even life for their faith.

      You find me a persecuted Christian in America and I’ll show you someone completely out of touch with reality.

      1. Bryan says:

        I think the author is more warning about a prejudice (NOT discrimination) agains christians. I think this view (the author’s standpoint) is a little overstated, but somewhat valid – there is a trend against christianity.
        as the author says about the recent events:
        “…a harbinger of further ostracism to come”

        not persecution. just ostracism. i don’t think anyone is trying to reduce the sufferings of christians elsewhere in the world (at least i would SINCERELY hope not) i think they’re just warning that they see this trend of prejudice against the church.

        that being said, i don’t really think this is because of the teachings of Jesus. i think it falls more on the christians who have done a poor job of relating to the world around them. (too far one way or the other)

        1. Mart says:

          I hear what Bryan and Kay are saying, but I think persecution has a fairly consequential connotation. Sometimes we are harassed, ostracized, maligned and otherwise degraded. Maybe it’s just a distinction in semantics, but we Christians are often just as guilty as the rest of our population about our use of hyperbole. It is just hyperbolic to me to suggest that Christians are persecuted in this country. Why, we tolerate Westboro Baptist Church doing things that I believe approach persecution of their unwitting victims. But our Constitution protects their right, as abhorrent as I find their “speech.”

          1. Bryan says:

            I completely agree. to be sure, it was a poor word choice on the author’s part.

            and i think what’s happening with westboro babtist church is anathema.

        2. Sara B. says:

          There’s no trend against Christianity, but rather a growing, vocal opposition to the ideas underlying Christianity.

          And why not? Why is a religion that preaches intolerance and actively lobbies against civil rights for fellow Americans immune from criticism simply because its views are deeply rooted? Why should the Christian religion lie beyond reproach?

          1. Trudy says:

            Sara B. I find alot of people (for good reason) feel the way you do about the christian church, please remember that (the church) as refered to in the bible is a body of people, and people are flawed. Christians are called to “do everything they do with love” Intolerance is not actually preached in true Christian gatherings. Especialy since followers of christ know that when we judge others we “are guily of the same sin” I as a Christian can not see anyone finding a issue with the underlying ideas of Christianity, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t sleep with someone else’s wife. By all means, speak up when you see christians not speaking up out of a place of love or concern for others, cause that is what Christians are called to do

          2. Tony H. says:

            Sara B,
            Sorry, Sara, but it is because of “the ideas underlying” Christianity that the opposition is growing. Christianity does NOT preach intolerance nor does it lobby against anybody’s “civil rights”. It does not force anybody to accept its beliefs and tenets. Jesus even asked for those who tortured and crucified him to be forgiven. His is the example we are taught to follow.
            There is no way everyone is going to believe the same way and even God knows this is true, but there are people who will use this difference in beliefs and opinions to divide people for their own benefit.

          3. Bryan says:

            please understand that I agree with you. I tried to express that this trend against christianity is due the poor job that a lot of christians are doing relating to the world (by this, i mean relating the lessons of scripture to the world we live in)

            ultimately, it is a message of love that many have turned into a message of judgement.

            i do think there is a trend against christianity(however slight it might be), and rightly so. it’s just sad to me that it’s because of the followers who do a horrible job and not the actual teachings or those who seek to actually carry a message of love.

      2. Courtney says:

        I respectfully disagree. Why should only the extremes of persecution be considered persecution? Merriam Webster defines persecution: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief. What we have seen unfold in this country from time to time, including in this time with Chick-fil-a, could be considered a mild example of social persecution. It’s still persecution.

      3. Kay says:

        Hi Mart,

        I am a Coptic Christian from Egypt where the ‘real persecution’ you’re talking about happens.

        However, I disagree with you that what happens in Amercia is not persecution. It’s just a different kind.
        The problem is, in a country like Egypt there are no real human rights, so when we are oppressed and killed for our beliefs, it’s because we are not ‘free’.

        In America however, we should be. This past Christmas, I had to go to several places before I found a card that said Merry Christmas rather than ‘Happy Holidays’. Why can’t we say Merry Christmas? Why does it offend people that I’m celebrating Chrsimas? People have no problems saying happy Hanukkah or happy Ramadan. But Christmas is offensive.

        Also, the statement in no way states that she does not ‘like’ or support homosexuals. We can’t even express our opinions without being labeled as intolerant. That’s sad.

        Come to the middle east and wear a cross. You’ll understand the true meaning of intolerance.

        1. Sara B. says:

          Who’s preventing you from saying “Merry Christmas”?

          Who’s offended?

          And when was the last time you heard someone say “Happy Ramadan”…ever…?

          Welcome to the America of Jews and Muslims until–oh, about twenty years ago. Are you asking for equal footing with–or preference over–other religions?

          If you can’t express your opinions without being labeled as intolerant…well, then, maybe it’s time to re-examine your opinions.

          1. Candice says:

            Wow Sarah B., maybe you should get out more and not be so harsh. I have definitely heard Ramadan felicItations. I’m sure in many part of the country it is rare, but it’s not unheard completely.

            Also, I think this article proves that a person can express his opinion with grace and humility and still be labeled intolerant. Dan Cathy was not rude or hurtful, he simply expressed his belief in biblical marriage. Now his is being labeled as intolerant, homophobic, etc.

          2. Phil says:

            Candice, the manner in which you express your opinion is not, by itself, enough to make your opinion tolerant. I don’t doubt that some people can be very nice, while expressing bigoted opinions.

            Also, saying–in effect–that God will ruin this country for allowing gay marriage is not being tolerant. It is not even just being against gay marriage, it is stating that gays will (literally) destroy this country. Those are troubling words.

          3. Colton says:

            Sara B.,
            Actually, almost every elementary, middle, and high school (at least in the state I live in) are not allowed to post or display anything regarding Christmas. We couldn’t even have a Christmas tree in our high school for fear of offending someone and getting some kind of lawsuit brought against us.
            So yes, there are certainly people that are offended by simply the word Christmas.

            Also, if your view of Christianity is that it is a religion of intolerance, you are sadly mistaken. Looking at the life of Jesus, you see that He lived with, ate with, and spent a majority of his time with the most hated and discriminated people of his day.
            While I agree that a lot of churches have lost their way in this regard, at the heart of the matter, Christianity is so much about accepting any kind of person in any kind of state. Jesus really only gave us two rules to follow: love God, and love others.

      4. kate says:

        I assume by “persecuted” they just mean unjust. In that sense i suppose it is persecution, albeit in a very rudimentary way.

      5. Patrick says:

        When the mayor of a city says that you can’t have a business in the city that is persecution. You can’t do business unless you wear the mark. Allegorical, but accurate. I’m more disheartened by the Christian left than I am a Rahm Emanuel.

    6. melissa says:

      do your friends also stop their spending for “made in China” products, OPEC products, Timberland products, the list is endless. If your sword that you fall on is based on “oh my money goes toward anti-gay” functions – then you better grow your own, make your own and hide…because there’s no where in American that you will spend 100% of your money without part of it going where you don’t know or don’t want it to go. To you, I say – gays and lesbians are acting the victims here and need to grow up.

    7. Mr. Need to Know says:

      I think that the owner of the establishment was exercising its religious views and did not say anything about homosexuals. Perhaps these (gay) individuals are another group of “Bleeding Hearts of America”.

      Nation of Islam that preaches anti gay sentiments are not homophobes, just the Chritians, why? Muslim will not take the BS and use their card calling all gay advocates/Bleeding Hearts of America “islamphobe”.

      As far as you called them the nice Muslims who wanted to build their establishment 2 blocks away from the ground zero on the 10th year mark of the terrorist attack, hmmm, yes they are nice, and they have the right to build it there. It would have been even better if they build a mosque in the ground zero. It is their right, isn’t it?

      You preach equality but just all the Bleeding Hearts of America cry and punish a section of the population that are just exercising their freedom of speech and religion.

    8. Jonathan says:

      Ray H,

      How can you say this article appeals to the “persecuted ethos”, and the author was trying to play the victim card, when he said at the end of the article:

      “We’ve got to go beyond boycotts and political statements and feigned offense at perceived persecution”?

      The only people I ever hear calling Christianity the “privileged” religion are non-Christians who find Christianity offensive. I’m not saying that’s the case with you – I would have no way to know. But it’s a typical belief among those who find Christianity offensive. Because if you are a Christian who doesn’t hide your Biblical views, it’s really hard to miss all the ways you are persecuted, shamed, ridiculed, laughed at – as this current controversy is the perfect example!

      This controversy was caused because a Christian man said he believes in the moral code given to us by Jesus himself. And with that, he was immediately labeled a hater and a bigot. That’s persecution my friend. Certainly not the worst type of persecution, but it’s persecution nonetheless.

      And it’s not “playing the victim” to simply stand up and say this is unfair. It’s simply stating the obvious.

      You said, “You only need to [take] a small step back to see how Christianity is still very much THE privileged religion.” Yes, that’s true. If you step back far enough, and ignore the details of what’s going on, you might actually conclude that Christianity is the privileged religion in America. But if you come in a little closer in and take a more detailed look you’ll see that Christians in America are actually suffering great penalties for holding their beliefs. Including loss of work and friends.

      One person here talked about how her friend, a scientist, could no longer work as a scientist because of her Christian beliefs. The scientific community ostracized her. A Christian man in Florida just a few months ago was threatened by his local government because he owned a t-shirt shop and refused a request from a gay group to print up gay pride t-shirts. (Should a private small business owner really be forced to do something that goes against his religious beliefs? In America today, if you’re a Christian the answer to that question is a resounding YES).

      Here in New York, the New York City public schools just kicked out all the churches that rented space in them for their Sunday services. Their reason for doing so… the churches were intolerant of LGBT rights. In other words, the churches were haters. That’s the largest city in America calling CHURCHES hate organizations!

      In the last few years, New York City public school students were welcomed to publicly celebrate Jewish and Muslim holidays. Kids could bring signs and symbols of those two religions to class during their holiday periods. But Christian kids were forbidden from any public celebration of Christmas. They weren’t even allowed to display or wear any symbols of Christmas.

      I don’t say that to play the victim, because the Bible tells us this will happen – if we follow Jesus. I say it to make the point that Christianity is certainly not “THE privileged” religion in America today. It is in fact the only religion that’s fair game for persecution.

    9. joni says:

      Sir, with all due respect, and everything that is happening, it makes perfect sense that we would not elect a muslim president. Allthough, our last one was definitely a muslim sympathizer! I am a christian, and I dont see myself as a victim. If you are going to be intellectually honest, tho there is definitely a trend happening in America, where christians are being vilified, and hated. 100 yrs. ago, the majority of America were christians, noe that number is dwindling to a minority! As, I said, I dont see myself as a victim tho, because Jesus said this would happen. As far as christians being priviledged…..maybe it seems so in America, but in some middle eastern countries muslims are priviledged. There are some very rich muslims. Your post sounds like you really dont like christians too much.. The problem with muslims building a community center right next to ground zero, is very obviously, a slap in the face for the many families , who lost someone! I have no doubts, that some very RICH Saudi Arabians were the perpretators. It is also very obvious that muslims do NOT want to similate, and become American citizens. Which entails honoring our country, and laws, and following them. A survey was done with muslims that live here in America, and 97% of them think that sharia law is better, than America laws, and Constitution. If a person feels like that, they dont need to be here! As much as a psychopath he is, Charles Manson once said, “Racism will be the end of America.” Whether you are muslim, christian, yellow, white, black, jew if you dont want to follow, and honor our lwas, and Constitution-you need to leave. Christianity was the “founding religion” of America. Our laws were based on christian values and morals. So, excuse us, if we cling to our bibles……and guns.

  3. Kay says:

    Amen and amen. Thank you for this outstanding post. I encourage believers to support Chick-fil-A today with their business; but much more important, to take time today to earnestly pray for our nation. May all true Christ followers be an unflinching witness for Jesus and biblical truth in our culture–today and every day.

  4. Paul says:

    Best piece I have seen on this whole mess. Well said, and well written.

    1. Billy Birch says:

      Right: best reaction I’ve read on-line yet about this fiasco! Way to go, Trevin. And if “the Christian religion” were indeed THE privileged religion in America, this backlash would have not even occurred.

      There is an anti-Christian sentiment in both the gay and atheist communities in this country. Both groups are extremely intolerant of the Christian community. This IS about Jesus and His “narrow-minded” message (Matt. 7:13-14), and nothing else.

      Give us 5 more years and this country will be fighting for NAMBLA’s rights to our young boys.

      1. Matt Poe says:

        @Billy Birch – Get over yourself. The reason why people are taking issue with your faith is that you are attempting to use the tenets of your faith as a model for public policy that will affect everyone, regardless of their belief in your God, or lack there of. I have no problem with Christians being Christians. That is their right. I have a problem with people telling me that I have to accept the Christian definition of marriage when marriage is a social institution that is not unique to any one religion. If one is not seeking to be married before your God, then your God’s approval should not be regarded as a necessary prerequisite. Same sex couples getting married is not going to have a negative effect on christian married couples. It will not taint their marriages, and Christians will not be held accountable for the gay couple who lived down the street from them when they are judged before God. What logical reason is there for Christians to stand in the way of same sex unions?

        1. Billy Birch says:


          I am quite over myself, thank you.

          “What logical reason is there for Christians to stand in the way of same sex unions?”

          Our “logic” is derived from what Scripture teaches. If a particular culture wants to grant same-sex marriages, that is their business. The logical “business” of the Christian, however, is to uphold a biblical standard. We are bound not by a culture’s standards but by God’s.

          You fail to adequately understand the Christian perspective (and I think most in our culture do). Christians are trying to warn of impending danger, not stifle anyone’s alleged freedom. You’re free to believe what you will. But we as Christians are called to warn people of faulty and/or life-altering, as well as eternal-life-altering, belief systems.

          You seem to view the conservative Christian message as one of repression. The truth, however, is that the Christian message is one of liberation! Perspective is king.

          1. Matt Poe says:


            We must be talking about two totally different things, because from the reports I have read, Dan Cathy has made political contributions to lobbyist groups pushing for an outright legislative ban on same-sex marriage at the federal level. That is no mere warning. On the contrary, it is a direct move to stifle the freedom of same sex couples to have their relationships formally recognized by the state so that they can enjoy all of the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy under the laws of this country.

            Please explain to me the mental gymnastics one must engage in to conclude that advancing such a legislative agenda is liberating, rather than the text book definition of repression.

          2. John O says:

            Matt Poe,

            First, everyone appeals to *something* to base their beliefs about moral/ethical issues upon. What do you base yours on?

            Second, no one is forcing you to accept any view of marriage. We are simply saying that there is an objective source (God) that defines what marriage is supposed to be. You can take it or leave it. We’re saying “this is what we believe about marriage.” and then we give you a reason why we believe that.

            Third, you say “I have a problem with people telling me that I have to accept the Christian definition of marriage” Again, we’re not tell you that you have to accept it. But, what I find ironic is that those in gay community are telling you, and me, that we MUST accept THEIR view, or we will be vilified as haters and bigots. Do you see the difference? We say, “here’s our view of marriage, you’re free to accept it or reject it, and we’re going to love you regardless.” They say,”here’s our view of marriage, and you’re not free to reject it, because if you do, then you will be vilified, and, in the case of chick-fil A, run out of town (and put out of business if they had there way).

            Finally, what logical reason do you have for denying *anyone* the right to marry? What about brother and sister? Uncle and niece? Multiply spouses? Paedophiles who want to marry a minor? People who want to marry their dogs (there have been cases)? On what objective moral ground can you object to *anything*? You see Matt, that is the real issue. I hope you consider these thoughts. More than that, if you’re not a Christian, I hope you consider the claims of Jesus Christ and the free gift of eternal life He offers. This site has many articles along those lines. Blessings, john

          3. Chris Julien says:

            Hey Matt Poe,

            Christians vary on their views of how much their faith should impact politics and the country they live in, and I don’t know enough to comment about that whole issue.

            But I do see what you’re saying, and I understand that you don’t want our God impeding on your rights in America. But let me just point out that someone’s “god” has to have the final say; policy will be decided in America, and it will be based on someone’s wisdom, someone’s view of the world. I personally think the Christian God holds the best wisdom and has given me a view of the world that I can live with, so I’m going to try to persuade others that Christianity has the best way to live.

            My point is, you are frustrated with our use of God to determine public policy, but you must see that you are also using your “faith” or beliefs in order to determine public policy. It goes both ways. Why should it be your way and not mine?

            God bless.

          4. Matt Poe says:

            @john O – (1) I base my beliefs upon logic, and the constitution, and my own perception of what is good, decent, and just. That is beside the point.
            (2) God is in no way an “objective” source. I realize that those who believe in Him are convinced that he is infallible, but to treat him as an objective authority when his very existence cannot be definitively proven is utterly absurd.
            (3) Seeking to define marriage legislatively by reference to the sacred text of a particular religion, contrary to your suggestion, IS telling someone that they have to accept the christian definition of marriage. As soon as such a law is enacted, those who disagree with it will have no choice about accepting or rejecting that definition. Counter to your suggestion, homosexuals are not insisting that Christians must enter into same-sex marriages. They are simply asking that you not actively battle against such unions being allowed. They don’t care if you approve, nor do they think that your or your God’s approval should be a necessary prerequisite.
            (4) There are plenty of reasons to block blood relatives from marrying, most of them biological. I suppose in the case of same-sex blood relatives, those reasons break down, as procreation is no longer a concern. There are many practical reasons why polygamy simply won’t work within our existing legal framework. As for minors and animals, they don’t have the capacity to enter into a contractual arrangement to begin with, so why would we let them marry? If a minor is emancipated, then they can do whatever they want. There are your logical reasons for barring those sorts of marriages, now how about you answer my original question and supply a logical reason why two dudes that you don’t even know getting married is any of your concern?

            @Chris Julien – Actually, under the first amendment, NOBODY’S God gets to have the final say on public policy. The Congress is forbidden from making laws respecting religion. So, to answer your question, the first amendment would be why it can’t be your way.

        2. Jerry Schmidt says:

          Hi Matt,

          The “logic” question is an interesting one. What logic does a non-believer have for marriage in the first place? Humanists/non-believers point to the origin of marriage as a chauvinist power-grab by early man to control women and property. Christians and other religions point to it as created by God for the purpose of uniting one man, one woman, and God.

          Either way, marriage was created, which ultimately nullifies the argument that marriage is a “basic human right,” as no basic rights can be created. Therefor, if marriage is either a) chauvinist, or b) religious, what logical reason would non-believers have in participating in it?

          The answer, of course, is government benefits. That leads to Voddie Baucham’s argument about government benefits for marriage being discriminatory in its very nature, because there are people who may never have the ability to get married and will never have those benefits.

          Logic, then, points to the idea that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place. If it remains a private institution with no benefits attached, then there is no discrimination to be had.

          So again, I challenge you, what logical reason (outside of a government tax break) is there to getting married from a humanist perspective?

          1. Matt Poe says:

            It is not merely the favorable tax treatment. Intestacy laws are affected by ones marital status. Marital Privilege shields spouses from being compelled to testify against their partners. Divorce laws protect both parties to a marriage in the event that the marriage is dissolved. Medical Privileges barring non-family from visitation, sharing of insurance coverage, the list goes on and on. It is not nearly as trivial as you suggest.

            Another reason that motivates many marriages that you seem to have omitted from your exceptionally thorough treatment of the subject is LOVE. A wedding, at bottom, is an outward expression and celebration of the love between two people. The desire to declare your love, and you intention to be bound to this one person, forsaking all others, for the rest of your natural life are not desires exclusively experienced by heterosexual couples.

            I agree with you though, the easy way to level the playing field is to eliminate all of the legal rights and protections that are dependent on one’s marital status, and remove the government from the equation entirely. While that would work, I have a feeling that conservatives, facing the loss of their favorable tax treatment and shared insurance coverage, will do everything in their power to make sure that possibility never comes to fruition.

          2. Jerry Schmidt says:

            Hi Matt,

            Thanks for taking the time to answer. I still want to challenge you, though, on the fact that government benefits and the other items you listed to married couples is in-and-of-itself discriminatory because it denies those benefits to those who can’t/won’t marry. Just because I love someone, why does that give me the “right” to share an insurance policy? Why can’t my best friend and I share one? Why can’t my best friend be allowed to see me in the hospital if I’m not married? Your argument in the first paragraph shows that you want to define what the limits of marriage ought to be, which means the next group after gays will claim discrimination by you.

            Love does not explain a humanistic reason for gay marriage – it explains the bond and design created by God. If God were not in the picture, humanists claim marriage is based on property rights (the spouse being the property). You can’t have it both ways. Either humans created marriage to be a male-centered property rights system, or God created it to bind a man and woman together in love.

            Marriage is a sacrament. This means it’s on the same level as, say, Communion. Now, if homosexuals wanted to display some sort of remembrance for something by breaking bread and drinking wine, it wouldn’t/couldn’t be Communion in the Christian sense. You can’t just take something God designed and redefine it for yourselves.

            That’s why I find it interesting that homosexuals want to attach themselves to a belief of a theology they don’t believe in. If benefits/privileges were out, like you said, they claim it would be about love. But that symbolic display of love is based on God. If they are unwilling to do other things that Christians do, then why this?

          3. Phil says:


            You keep repeating that “Either humans created marriage to be a male centered property rights system, or God created it to bind a man and a woman together in love.” These are not the only possibilities. There are many, many more.

            How about, “God created it to bind two people together in love?” Since homosexuals want to get married, that seems to be a perfectly logical answer?

        3. Emily says:

          @Matt Poe…have you ever googled the definition of marriage? Try it.

          1. Ray H. says:

            @ Everybody not named Matt Poe

            Are you guys serious? Obvious, intangible things like LOVE aside, plenty of studies have demonstrated that how marriage has positive social effects, regardless of the gender of the couple. I have friends with have gay parents and they are perfectly fine by any standard. What is NOT okay is that cheap, slippery slope argument that a commentator threw up earlier about NAMBLA. The California supreme court decision that overruled Prop 8 was careful to point out that polygamy leads to all sorts of adverse domestic problems like power/relationship imbalances which cannot foster a nurturing environment for children.

            Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy any more than heterosexual marriage does; appealing to that sort of fear is completely dishonest. And you wonder why non-Christians dont like us?

            As a Christian, I don’t believe homosexuality is moral. However, we live in a secular society, not a theocracy, and I would very much like to keep it that way. Living in a secular society we accept things we don’t agree with, or find immoral–for instance, worshiping other gods–because if we expect to be treated with respect, we have to treat them with respect.

          2. Melinda says:

            Well said, Ray. I’ve been a Christian for many years and I completely agree with you.

      2. Mice says:

        Well said

  5. Frank says:

    Could you source your quote “anti-Christian sentiment expressed as opposition to Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity” as you did your other quote on homophobia?

  6. Derek says:

    Hey Trevin. Good article. But I’d like to point out that your argument is based on conjecture. I’d love to share it but I can hear my critics already, “his argument is based on a hypothetical scenario that he created, not factual examples.”

    I really wish you found some examples of outspoken Muslim anti-gay’s whom the media and politicians have largely ignored rather than create a scenario. Perhaps a re-write? :) Or a follow up.

    I only say that because conservatives (and I am one) see clear patterns (rightly so) but then often base their arguments on “typical scenarios.” That really weakens our position.

    1. Trevin Wax says:


      This wasn’t about the media, as much as about the mayors’ responses. That’s why I pointed out the double standard in Emanuel saying Cathy’s business isn’t welcome, and his simultaneous partnering with Farrakhan – outspoken critic of gays AND Jews. Apparently, Chicago values leave much to be desired.

    2. TimF says:

      I recently read an article from the Boston Herald ( Here is a validated story about the Mayor of Boston turning over property to an Islamic Iman for less than 10% of its worth and that Iman had stated very clearly his position on homosexuality. ““[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert  . . . Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.”
      Check out this other article on this matter:

    3. Jonathan says:

      Derek, here’s a video of Farrakhan taking basically the same stand as Cathy – yet he’s embraced by Chicago’s mayor, while Cathy is condemned. No hypotheticals here!

  7. Phil says:


    I believe you have (unfairly) “soft-peddled” Cathy’s remarks.

    While you are technically correct that the remarks you cite are the remarks that “triggered” this whole brouhaha, the truth is that Cathy has made much more hard-hearted (really, offensive) remarks that came to light as a result of his initial comments. So when you state “That’s it.” That isn’t it.

    Specifically, Cathy stated that “we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation” for “shaking our fist at him”–in effect stating that God will “punish” this country (what, ruin it?)–becuase of gay marriage. That is crossing some serious lines. (Remember Rev. Falwell and how 9/11 was the result of the gays?)

    Furthermore, this, combined with some of the organizations Chick Fil A has given money to (NOT Cathy personally, but the corporation!), and I think the entire episode is understandable. I believe that is the context in which some of the Mayors had made their remarks. (Again, remember, this is Chick Fil A, the corporation, giving money. Not Cathy as an individual, out of his own personal money, earned from the coporation.)

    I think these facts are important to understanding what is going on here.

    1. Stephanie N says:

      That’s exactly what I was thinking as I read this article, Phil. Most of the people I know who are very angry about Chick-fil-A, when called to task about the basic right to free speech and having an opinion, will gladly point out that it’s not just about that. It’s about how Cathy has apparently used company money to donate to organizations considered anti-gay.

      1. dave says:

        Firstly, I believe Chick-Fil-A is a privately held company. I’m open to correction. Secondly Stephanie, what organizations do you support?

        1. Kody Frazier says:


          How is it relevant to the conversation to know what organizations Stephanie supports? Her comment expresses the point that many people are uncomfortable with the fact that the money they pay to this company may be used to support organizations that they don’t agree with, and so they don’t feel like patronizing their stores any more. That’s a valid argument against patronizing a company, privately or publicly held.

          I’m sure many people would stop patronizing a popular company if they found out it was supporting organizations they did not agree with. In fact, many people have publicly claimed that they will no longer support Oreo or Target for their pro-homosexual marriage positions. How is it any different in the Chick-fil-A scenario happening now?

          1. David S. says:


            The big difference is that you do not have mayors saying that they will ban Oreo or Target from coming to their city. We have three mayors publicly stating that they will not allow Chick-fil-A into their cities. Individuals have the right to not patronize whomever they choose, however government does not have they right to say “because I don’t agree with your view, you cannot come here.” Leave it up to the citizens.

          2. Anne says:


            It’s different in this: Where do we see any Mayor publicly blocking the building of a Target, or the sales of Oreos in their city? We don’t.

            The point is, they are free to make their contributions, and place their products or stores in the public market… and customers are then free to decide if they will patron their stores or purchase their products.

            Free speech is left intact, the freedom for businesses to choose what they want to contribute to is left intact, and the freedom for citizens to make personal choices about who they will buy products from is also left intact.

            What’s good for Target and Oreo, etc., should also be good for Chick-fil-A. Should it not?

          3. Kody Frazier says:

            David and Anne,

            You live in a Representative Democracy, where we elect officials to act on our behalf. Depending on the government structure of your particular location, this often includes a mayor or city manager. In this scenario, if you don’t agree with the actions of the elected official you can elect someone else for the next term or call a re-call election.

            These mayors are acting on what they believe to be the best interest of their community. It’s up to the citizens to say otherwise with votes. If these citizens vote to keep these mayors who hold these views then it tells us that the majority of people in those locations agree with the elected officials stance.

          4. Anne says:

            Kody… if we had Christian believing mayors in other cities who decided they’d take public stands shouting down companies such as Starbucks, Target, AT&T, & Home Depot, or stating they would not allow them to conduct business in their cities based upon the fact those companies donate contributions to groups fighting FOR gay marriage… I doubt seriously you and your side would sit silently by and await the next mayoral election and chance to oust them. This is an overstep on part of the mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Fran, DC… and once they knew they had NO legal leg to stand upon while making grand threats to prevent CFA from doing business in their cities they began to back down in their words. This is not about re-election to oust someone we disagree with (as you suggest) this is about public outcry that they have NO legal rights to any attempted banning of CFA, and are abusing the platform their election granted them.

      2. JenB says:

        Please provide proof that the organizations being donated to are actually anti-gay and descriminate against gays. Being pro-traditional family and marriage does not automatically equate to anti-gay. It just doesn’t. Only a narrow-minded person would assume that. I am for the traditional family, but I am not anti-gay. The gay marriage issue is not just about Christian. Other religions do not approve either. Yet the Christians are being pointed out as bigoted.

    2. Bob Kundrat says:

      Hey Phil,

      Even if you were to assume guilt concerning prior Cathy comments that “came to light” because of his most recent interview without looking at the context of those comments, the point is that it’s not those previous comments that started this brouhaha. It was the current, very inoffensive comments. These most recent comments stood on their own in causing a great deal of distress and that is what Trevin is addressing.

      Maybe people were primed because they had Cathy’s previous comments in mind but if that’s the case, why not the same backlash against other religions who oppose homosexuality? Why no backlash against Emanuel and his partnership with Farrakhan?

      That appears to be Trevin’s ultimate point in concluding that the difference is in the person of Jesus and his “radical sex ethic”.

      1. Phil says:


        Every article I’ve read about this talks about both Cathy’s June comments and his July comments. I haven’t seen anything to support your idea that “these most recent comments stood on their own in causing a great deal of distress”–if you have some proof for that, I’d be willing to look at it. (Furthermore, it is impossible to know how big/little a deal this would have been had he ONLY made the comments Trevin cited above. Indeed, it is possible that it “blew up” ONLY because of his earlier comments. But this is hard to know.)

        Moreover, Trevin’s article makes absolutely no mention of the June comments (italicized sentence). It is as if they didn’t exist. I find this completely unfair, as they are the more galling comments, not the comments that he cites. Since Trevin makes the point explicitly that Cathy’s comments were no-big-deal, he implies that people are up in arms for no big deal (and Christians are being persecuted). To leave out Cathy’s June comments is to not tell the whole story.

        Furthermore, I have not done any search of Farrakhan and his comments on homosexuality. I don’t know if he has said comparable things. If you find it, let me know, and I will be equally outraged. :)

        Finally, on some level, it makes much more sense for there to be more “anger” directed at Christians rather than Muslims. They are us. We grew up Christian, they are our neighbors, they form a large part of this country’s population. Everybody knows someone who is a Christian. Even our last President was a born again Christian. Muslims are much, much smaller target. They aren’t us. They aren’t our neighbors. They don’t control big corporations (that I know of). Why get angry at such a small thing? (I am not saying it is “right” or “wrong.” Just that it is understandable, from a sociological perspective.)

        I can tell you (from personal experience), that people bring a lot of (Christian) “baggage” to these conversations. Hence the larger outrage.

        1. Alan says:

          Phil, how is Cathy’s statement that “we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation” any different from what Paul says in Romans 1?

          “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (1:18)

          “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (1:26-27)

          Actually, Cathy did miss something important. Homosexuality isn’t just an invitation for God’s wrath, it is part of God’s wrath.

          1. Phil says:

            Alan, it isn’t any different. But that only makes the statement “right” for a small group of hard-line christians. The vast majority of the country finds the statement abhorrent (as it should).

            Just think back to when Rev. Falwell said 9/11 was due to the gays. Are you saying that is going to happen again? Because of the gays? (Do you not then have a duty to do “something” about them? Maybe make it very, very difficult, if not impossible, for them to practice their sin? Maybe they should be “taken out,” so that we can save our country?)

            (BTW, Rev. Falwell had to walk back his statement, the uproar was so bad.)

      2. Jonathan says:

        Phil, here you go:

        That’s Farrakhan taking basically the same position on same-sex marriage. Yet Emmanuel PARTNERS with him while condemning Cathy. So is it Jesus or is it marriage? Which one is Emmanuel really offended by?

        1. David N. says:

          And if Cathy wanted to promote crime-prevention, or something else actually positive, Emmanuel would be right to partner with him for that purpose as well. Partnering with someone doesn’t mean you agree with everything they believe, it means putting aside differences for the greater good — a lesson that seems lost in the static of mud-flinging “debates” in Congress and the country at large.

        2. Phil says:


          I suspect that the answer to your question is neither Jesus nor marriage, but Republicans. That is, he was playing to his base.

          And this results in double-standards all the time (on both sides).

    3. mel says:

      Did you know Ruth Graham said essentially the same thing?

      Do you realize that many prophets in the bible have said similar things?

      How is any of it unbiblical?

      How is the so-called “Christian” group that is being just as abusive about this subject toward those that support what scripture says, any different than Israel who killed the prophets and consequentially was cut off?

      Doesn’t anyone read their bible with comprehension?

      How can someone be filled with the Holy Spirit and be so blind to what the scriptures say?

      Explain to me how standing up and saying, “No that is wrong and you should be repent” is evil??

      Was John the baptizer evil?

  8. Ken W says:

    Maybe the reason why we have “Christophobia” or whatever you want to call it is because Christians have oppressed and outright murdered people for over a thousand years for nothing more than not believing the same way they do. You folks have a long, bloody and disgraceful history to live down.

    1. Billy Birch says:


      Are you suggesting that if some “professing Christians” over the last two thousand years had not behaved thus then there would not exist “Christophobia” today?

      Our “long, bloody an disgraceful history” pales by comparison to murderous regimes of atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, and other oppressors and tyrants. While that does not excuse Christianity’s tainted history, it certainly grants some context to your comments.

      1. Kody Frazier says:


        There is a big difference between killing people in the name of a religion, and killing people but having no religious (or athiest) motivation. I guess I’m saying that you are not comparing apples-to-apples here, because Stalin did not kill in the name of atheism.

        Hitler often spoke out against atheism, comparing it to communism and the Bolshevik revolution. He expressed a Christian faith many times, and was raised a Catholic. Scholars are torn as to his true beliefs, but many have settled on Deism.

        1. Billy Birch says:


          The point in responding to Ken was his implication that the *reason* we have Christophobia is because of professing Christians in our tainted past killing heretics. I’m arguing that is not a sufficient reason for Christophobia.

          Even if some professing Christians in our past never killed an individual, there would still exist Christophobia. What people really fear is Christ’s exclusive message — that His way is the only way, and that He is the only way to the Father and to eternal life with Him (John 14:6). That message is a phobia to our culture, not Christians of the past killing heretics.

          1. Kody Frazier says:


            I wasn’t arguing that point, and I agree that people would still have an issue with modern Christianity regardless of the bloodshed in the past. I was simply countering your assertion that Stalin and Hitler committed their atrocities in the name of atheism.

            I’d like to counter your second point, that people fear the idea of the Christian message. I don’t believe that is true. Many people fear the oppressive nature of religion, and in the U.S. that means Christianity since it is still the dominant religion here.

            People get angry when others try to impose their will on them, and that’s how many feel about the state of modern Christianity in America, that it’s simply trying to impose its will on others through social and political means.

    2. You’ve been reading too much Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
      The Christians freed the slaves and pretty much gave this culture every other good thing they have.

      1. Matt Poe says:

        Correction, Christians freed the slaves from their Christian owners. In fact, part of the justification for slavery was the savagery of non-christian Africa. Also, Christians didn’t give American culture every other good thing they have. For example, were it not for Thomas Edison, a professed atheist, we might still be using candles and gas lanterns. Stephen Hawking, one of the most gifted intellectuals of our time, is an Atheist, as are countless Nobel laureates. In fact, speaking of Alfred Nobel, it bears pointing out that he also was an atheist. Countless musicians, artists, actors, and directors who have made countless contributions to american culture are not christians. Heck, even Jesus was jewish. Y’all keep right on taking undeserved credit for society’s accomplishments though…

        1. The science that Edison inherited, was a Christian creation. Etc.

          I stand by my statement: The Christians freed the slaves and pretty much gave this culture every other good thing they have.

      2. Hi Matt,
        I just learned something: Edison wasn’t an atheist.
        He said, “I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt.”

        Christianity created the world-view and ethics that made every good thing we now enjoy, including modern medicine (Puritans were some of the first experimenters with inoculations), science, emancipation of the slaves, human rights, etc., even the very impulses for justice now being distorted to try to legitimize homosexuality.

  9. Jon says:

    Christophobia no, but surely “Christiansphobia”.. me included.

  10. shannon hopkins says:

    this is so ridiculous, i have trouble believing that these people have nothing beter to do then make this a big issue.chicfila is not out JUDGEING YOU PEOPLE. they r people too, who have beliefs and morrals just like every one elsa.working to provide for thier families,livin thier life too the fullest.which means obeying the lord,and living by his judgeing people get a life.leave those people who do have beliefs,and morrals alone.i hope for those who r involved in doing this,can only find peace within themselves.FOR IT IS NOT THOSE WHO ARE JUDGED,BUT THOSE WHO JUDGE NEED TOO WORRY,AND NEED TO BE FORGIVIN.i hope chicfila finds only more strength tnen ever before.remember also GOD KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE YOU DID.OUR GOD DID NOT BRING YOU THIS FAR FOR ANYTHING ELSA TO HAPPEN TO YOU,BUT TO ONLY BRING YOU CLOSER TOO HIM

  11. Tim says:

    Great article and I agree with it, but to play devil’s advocate for a moment here, I think most Chick-fil-A opponents would respond that this is not about a few comments that the Cathy family made as much as how they actively support organizations which seek to block any legislation for gay marriage.

    1. mel says:

      Amazon founder just gave how much to promote changing traditional marriage to something else?

      Why is it okay for them to promote changing something?

      1. Tim says:

        In my opinion, it is not. And if you want to boycott Amazon, you can do that. I am not personally going to boycott anything, but if you feel enough conviction about something then go right ahead.

      2. ashlie says:


        There are several very large differences here. First of all, the only thing that Jeff Bezos (the founder of amazon) is looking to change is the systematic discrimination of citizens of the United States. Gay rights groups are not looking for special privileges for anyone– they are looking for equal treatment for all.

        Secondly, Jeff and his wife MacKenzie, donated money to their LOCAL campaign in their home state of Washington, not to a National fund. And it came out of their own PERSONAL funds, not funds from their company. Additionally, news of their donation came from the organization itself, and Jeff and MacKenzie have done no interviews to promote themselves or their company because of this fact. They are being touted by others, not patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

        I’m really don’t understand how this got so confusing to so many. “This is my commandment; that you love one another as I have loved you.” Christians: you’re doing it wrong.

        1. A moral wrong cannot be the basis of a civil right.

  12. benwallis79 says:

    With all due respect, this article is not about Jesus, no matter what the title tries to imply…it’s about discrimination and morality.

    In regards to discrimination, I believe that there is a much bigger picture and a much larger goal at stake.

    In regards to morality, I believe that Jesus Christ transforms hearts and through the continual process of submission to the Holy Spirit, behavior is changed.

    Eating More Chicken today does absolutely NOTHING of eternal value!

    1. Barchetta says:

      ” Eating More Chicken today does absolutely NOTHING of eternal value! ”

      It makes the cows happy! :)

  13. Brenda says:

    I agree with Paul’s comment. This is the best piece I’ve read on this whole thing. Spot on and I agree wholeheartedly.

  14. Sam says:

    Wow I love how this article tries to make it seem like it’s a terrible thing to be a Christian in this Country as if you can compare that with the judgement you put on the gay community and apparently the Muslims! Your argument regarding Muslims is ridiculous. I would go far enough to argue that not many people on here would even support a Muslim Company in the first place! Name ONE Muslim American company that donates money to ANY ANTI ANYONE campaigns. Name ONE!

    1. Jo says:

      Sam, I think you miss why the author used the Muslim example. He’s not saying Christians are against Muslims or their businesses. (I’m sure I already do). You could insert practically any other group’s name and the principle would be the same. If Christians support their views publically, they are bashed in the media and elsewhere as being judgmental(ex. see most news media after Cathy’s comments were publicized). If Muslims such as Farrakan espouse the exact same views, (which Farrakan has done publically), no media outcry. When all else is the same, what else can it be than Jesus?

      1. Phil says:

        What else can it be?

        It can be the fact that we are more quick to critize something we think we “know,” rather than something we don’t know. In this regard, “we” grew up Christian, they are our neighbors, they form a large part of this country’s population. Everybody knows someone who is a Christian (and more and more, someone who is gay). Even our last President was a born again Christian.

        Muslims are much, much smaller target. They aren’t us. They aren’t our neighbors. They don’t control big corporations (that I know of). Why get angry at such a small thing? (I am not saying it is “right” or “wrong.” Just that it is understandable, from a sociological perspective.

        (I also bet this interest in Christianity is evidenced by “page views” on newspaper websites. Everyone (on both sides) wants to read about Christian “intolerance,” very few people want to read about Muslim “intolerance.”)

        It isn’t about Jesus. It is about us.

        1. Anne says:

          I’m not sure why you say, twice now, Islam is a much smaller target. The stats I’ve seen show Islam to be the fastest growing religion in the USA… while worldwide, Christianity is. Islam is no small target in our nation, and it’s most certainly not homosexual friendly.

          1. Phil says:

            According to the Pew Research Center, in 2010, Muslims made up 0.8% of the US population (that is, less than 1 percent).

          2. Anne says:

            My comment did not state Islam to be the largest religion in the US, rather, the fastest growing.

          3. Phil says:

            My point is that Islam is a small target.

  15. Jeff says:

    Trevin–Great article. You are exactly right. The folks posting negative comments reveal a couple of things. One, it shows that even among a large group of people who call themselves Christians, the culture’s view on gay marriage is more important than what God has said on the issue. And woe to that person who has chosen to side with the kingdom of darkness rather than the kingdom of God’s beloved Son. That person is in a frightening position.

    Two, the negative posters show that they are incapable of understanding the important point you made about Rahm Emmanuel’s willingness to partner with Louis Farrakhan–an outspoken critic of gay marriage (and, as you said, Jews). This fact proves conclusively that the issue is not about gay marriage, it’s about Jesus. You can also see this because Cathy’s position on gay marriage is the same as Barack Obama’s until a few months ago. I don’t remember Emmanuel or anyone else saying for the past decade that the values of Chicago’s very own Obama are not the values of Chicago. Why? Because this conflict is a spiritual one–it’s a conflict of two kingdoms–it’s about Jesus.

  16. Anita Cole says:

    This article has one fact incorrect. The boycott is not about the quote you posted. It is about the ton of money Mr. Cathy has given to organizations that go around passing or trying to pass laws against gay marriage rights. Those of us boycotting choose not to give money to fund depriving others of rights. The only oppression I see right now is the ones the Christian churches are helping to fund.

  17. Mike Lynch says:

    Christophobia. Christophobe. I’m totally gonna start using these term! Thanks Trevin!

  18. Jared W. says:

    With all due respect, the quote you cited is not the one that has people upset. It’s this one:

    “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake
    our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”

    If you couple that with the information available about his financial support of organizations which actively speak out against the legalization of gay marriage, it really does make it fairly clear what Mr. Cathy stands for.

    He’s got every right to think what he thinks and share it whomever he likes, but he should probably have the courage to suffer the results when a large number of the customers he relies on for financial security disagree with him. That’s all. Thanks.

    1. Marker says:

      Well said.

    2. Jo says:

      I think Mr. Cathy is absolutely willing to risk “suffering the results of financial insecurity” when it comes to the business he created. That’s why he’s stood by his statements even in the midst of heavy criticism. Just as his (privately owned) company is supporting the causes that that they agree with, so can (and do!) businesses that support gay rights activists. That’s what makes this country so great! Leave the protests at home when it comes to businesses (especially privately owned ones). Vote with your wallet – it’s much more effective!

  19. Ang says:

    Great article! IF the issue is really about what their money supports as some of you say. Why is that an issue? Home Depot, AT&T, etc support gay rights organizations. Then isn’t Chick-fil-A’s right and freedom to support what organizations they want. Such a double standard right?

    1. Kody Frazier says:


      No double standard, though many are trying to imply one where it does not exist. If you do not support the organizations that AT&T or Home Depot support, then it is your right to criticise their actions and choose not to patronize their stores. In the same sense it is the right of people to criticise the actions of the Chick-fil-A company and to stop patronizing them.

      Every person and private company has the right to support whatever ideas and beliefs they choose. It is equally the right of customers to criticise and patronize the companies that they choose for those beliefs and actions.

      1. Anne says:

        Again… in your post, you overlook the actions taken on part of specific mayors. At&T, Home Depot, they are not banned from Chicago, nor Boston, nor elsewhere for their contributions, nor their upper managements personal beliefs.

        Chick-fil-A is… or so they are attempting. So yes, it is a double standard.

        Chick-fil-A has the right to exist in the market place, just like businesses who donate their contributions to the efforts in support of gay marriage. As you said, then leave patronage choices up to the citizens who get to decide who they will purchase from and who they will not. As it is, the mayors have decided FOR the citizens of Chicago and Boston (are their other cities? Forgot..).

        This is a blatant double standard. We have Christian mayors in place in other cities… would you support them banning AT&T stores in their city.?.. Home Depot?… for their pro-gay marriage stances and contributions? Hopefully not, and hopefully that allows you to see how this is totally wrong.

    2. Phil says:

      What is the double standard?

      1. Anne says:


        Here is the double standard. Those who support the mayoral actions of the mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Fran, Wash DC, against CFA would come unhinged if Christian believing mayors in other cities took this same stance against AT&T, or Target, or Home Depot due to those companies sending financial contributions to those who are fighting for gay marriage. All hell would break loose against any such mayor. There’s your double standard.

        1. Phil says:

          Ah, I see it is a hypothetical standard. If this one other thing were to happen, which you think probably would happen, then there would be a double standard. So it is ok to point out the double standard, that you made up.

          You do realize that I can make up “hypothetical” double standards all day long too?

  20. Alan Noble says:


    I love and respect you, however, I’m afraid that you have not represented the boycott against CFA accurately. Cathy’s words certainly stirred up the issue, but the core objection was that CFA as a business was and is actively opposing same-sex marriage. In light of that, it is perfectly reasonable for homosexuals and those in favor of Same sex marriage to boycott CFA. Please read my post for a more nuanced and accurate discussion of this issue.

  21. This “boycott” shows that those who have embraced this sin now will attack anyone who dares suggest that they don’t support it as “hateful”, “intolerant”, unChristian, even not understanding the Bible itself. It is a totalitarian insistence that either we submit to their opinion about this sin or we are simply to be convicted of being indecent, hateful people. Get used to this. It is what Paul described in Romans 1:18ff, that homosexuality, like idolatry, is the willful exchange of truth for a lie. It is by nature intolerant, oppressive, and aggressive.

  22. Billy Birch says:

    Matt Poe,

    This blog did not give me the option to “reply” to your comments, so I had to post them here.

    “Please explain to me the mental gymnastics one must engage in to conclude that advancing such a legislative agenda is liberating, rather than the text book definition of repression.”

    The gospel sets sinners free. That is liberation; and that was the context of my comments with regard to liberation. The “warning” of which I speak is the consequences of sin.

    Cathy has the right to push for such legislation, just as those opposed to him have the right to argue against it. Would you not agree? Or are you suggesting that he does not have that right? Or are only atheists, agnostics, and anyone else NOT a Christian allowed to vie for certain legislation policies?

    1. You’re right. I agree.
      It is the role of government to repress crimes. Homosexuality has been seen for centuries as a crime. Indeed, it was seen as a crime against nature. And I believe that was an accurate perception.
      “There is no civil right to do a moral wrong.”

    2. Matt Poe says:

      Cathy has every right to throw his economic clout behind whatever political agenda he wishes to, I never argued that. What I have argued is that in doing so, he is attempting to force his beliefs on those who do not share them. That is a fact. I believe that is morally wrong and unamerican because it flies in the face of the First Amendment. Nobody needs you or any other Christian to save them from themselves. If they are wrong, and you are right, that will sort itself out whenever they and you depart this world. They clearly are aware of where you and your ilk stand on the issue, and the threat of eternal damnation has not, at this point, deterred them.

      You suggested in your prior posts that nobody was telling them they had to accept the Christian definition of marriage. I responded that the reality of the situation is that Mr. Cathy devotes huge sums of money to efforts aimed at doing just that: legislatively forcing people to accept the Christian definition of marriage. That is what I have a problem with, and that is what I have been arguing against this entire time. Your suggestion that this has not been occurring was disingenuous at best.

      1. It is frankly absurd to claim that supporting — whether through donations or posting comments on blogs — is forcing beliefs on those who do not share them.

  23. Keith Buckhout says:

    Since when did we Christians decide we do Public Relations for Jesus and that we need to win a culture war? Why would we make our battle so small? We don’t win news cycles and we shouldn’t antagonistically beat our chests. We’re called to love Jesus and make him known. Also we’re called to do it justly and humbly.

    Do people think we’re being evangelical by eating a chicken sandwich today? Supporting Chick-Fil-A today is about supporting conservatism and a Judeo-Christian culture and not actually supporting Christ and I pray we learn the difference.

    The support Chick-Fil-A or don’t support Chick-Fil-A is a battle that is beneath all Christians. It is small, antagonistic, filled by hate and sinfully personal. It’s so easy to say support Chick-Fil-A and support traditional marriage whereas building relationships and sharing Christ is hard.

    Our culture will pass away. People’s souls, should they come to love Jesus, will not.

    1. Anne says:

      I haven’t really seen any key players, Huckabee for example whose idea it was that August 1st people go to CFA, have said “support Chick-Fil-A and support traditional marriage”… it’s a stand for free speech, the freedom of religion, and showing CFA we will continue to patron them regardless of this public attack.

    2. ashlie says:

      THIS is what I have been searching for Keith. Thank you.

  24. JellyJam says:

    Ahh cmon…”Christophobia”? Why is it that homophobia is “the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility.” but Christophobia is “anti-Christian
    sentiment expressed as opposition to Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity.” Basically, that is comparing fear/hatred to disagreement, and I really think that is a pisspoor definition of “Christphobia”. Jesus went thru Christphobia. Dan Cathy? Not so much. I don’t think this whole Chick-fil-a thing is about Jesus at all, at least not the way the author puts it. It’s about people, Christian and non-Christian alike, disagreeing with a man who pubicly said he was supportive of only one type of family, “the biblical definition of a family unit.” To not think that would incite backlash was naive as a number of Americans have alternative forms of family or know people who don’t have a “traditional family”. And in our society, that will equate to a loss of sales and bad PR because people have a bandwagon mentality. Not because they’re anti-Jesus. They’re anti-injustice. And this injustice is demonstrated not just by words, but by Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-a donating millions of dollars to anti-same sex marriage organizations such as Exodus International, the Family Research Council, Marriage & Family Foundation and the National Organization for Marriage. I would rather not see my money go towards that, and there are many who agree that they don’t want their money going towards such causes either. And in all honesty, this was a known fact. It just took Dan Cathy stepping in front of the press and saying it for all to “hear”.

    1. Billie says:

      ” cmon…”Christophobia”? Why is it that homophobia is “the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility.” but Christophobia is “anti-Christian sentiment expressed as opposition to Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity.”
      Exactly! Shouldn’t Christophobia be the hatred of Christians, sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility? This article displays many flagrant fallacies of logic, but this uneven defining is just laughable. There are enough real things to write about, you don’t have to make things up just to write an article.

  25. JellyJam says:

    Lastly, it stuns me that the author of this blog turns to muslims, and says “Well, no one is yelling at the Muslims!” Let Louis Farrakhan go on tv saying anti-gay remarks, and he will hear an outcry. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a business to boycott. In addition, if we want to talk about “religion-phobia”, Muslims face hatred and discrimination every day in this country because of wars that stereotyped a whole religion. We have Americans cheering on the deaths of sandniggers and whatnot. We have Americans calling for other Americans to be fired just because they’re muslim. We have Americans protesting community centers and mosques because they’re for Muslims. Not because the muslims in their neighborhood did anything to them, but just because they’re muslim. And a lot of these Americans claim to be “Christian”. (Also, let it be known that just like Christianity (and Judaism), there are Muslims who agree with homosexuality, and ones that don’t.) So while it is okay to not agree with Middle Eastern culture, that is not a good reason to block how Muslim Americans live purely out of hate & fear, especially when they’re not harming anyone, which to me fits more properly into a definition of a “phobia.

    1. Mourg says:

      Thank you, JellyJam. I was really taken aback by the Muslim comments, and you pretty much summed up my thoughts on it.

  26. TDK says:

    Maybe if Cathy and the Chick-fil-a company had not been spokespeople against legalizing gay marriage, the comment would not have been perceived the way it was. I agree with what you wrote, but the “wrath” had more to do with prior acts.

  27. Ryan says:

    No idea where the “Christophobia” part comes in. I have no doubt that had the same actions been taken by a Muslim, or an atheist, or a Scientologist, or what have you, the same reaction would have happened.

    People are not opposed to the cause of Christ, they are opposed to the cause of those who are opposed to the cause of gay rights, and that’s something different altogether – and yes, one can follow Christ and still support the legalization of gay marriage. To suggest that anyone who promotes gay marriage is therefore persecuting Christianity is logically fallacious.

    So to make this about Christians being persecuted is not only incorrect, it misses the point entirely.

  28. Christopher Daugherty says:

    How would Christ have dealt with this situation? I remember a story about the overturning of a marketplace in a temple, as it was an extreme offense in the presence of our heavenly father. How do you think Christ would feel about someone turning a business like Chick-fil-A (marketplace) into a temple?
    I would also like to know what world you live in where “the same social ostracism and cultural condescension are not extended to Muslims and faithful adherents to other religions.” This is probably one of the most falsely ludicrous statements I’ve ever heard. Muslims have been demonized in this country for a time period spanning decades, but especially since September 11, 2012. In answer to your question: What if Dan Cathy were a Muslim? Chick-fil-A would NEVER have reached the amount of success it has in it’s time, especially in the south.
    I’m sorry Trevin, but I really don’t understand how this situation has anything to do with Christian principles at all. The very word “Christian” means Christ follower, and as far as I’m concerned, Christ was the son of God on Earth, not Dan Cathy, not Chick-fil-A, and not any other “Christian” who in faith aligns themselves with anything other than love.
    Please remove yourself, Dan Cathy, and the rest of your poor persecuted Christians from the cross. When you’re done with that, put Christ back up there.

  29. Minister, Laura DeGatana says:

    Chick-fil-A will be fine. They are covered in the Blood of the Lamb…everyone must pray that In the Name of Jesus Christ. True Chirstians must step higher, bind and tramble under their feet the evil that we see. We hold the power and the authority….its time we learn how to use it. The best of responses is Spiritual Warfare prayer, not only in this matter, but for our nation….you want to change things, get on your knees in the authority and power of the Name above every name, Jesus Christ. Amen. So It has be written so it shall be done. Amen.

  30. Debbie says:

    You know, it’s funny, how easy it is to manufacture Christian persecution when you define Christophobia as so much weaker than homophobia.

    Homophobia: “the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility.”

    Christophobia: “anti-Christian sentiment expressed as opposition to Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity.”

    I mean, really? How can you not see the difference in these? Christophobia is any statement in criticism of Christianity, while Christians can say and do whatever then want about gays, as long as they stop short of actual violence and hostility. They are different enough that the author’s comparison of them is an absurd comparison of apples and oranges.

  31. Ranger G (of the forest type) says:

    Strong and to the point-tho’ I’d urge that “phobia” needs to be cast in the realm of the irrational, and from that standpoint the definition of “Christophobia” is too broad–it’s not “phobic” for, say, Hume to argue against our faith–but it is “phobic” when a homosexual activist condemns Cathy for defending the natural family as an article of faith–for there are clear, rational bases to do so both from the impact of revealed truth, and independently the factual difference between inherently sterile, parent-denying (either the mom or the dad is necessarily absent) same-sex relations and male/female relations. So let’s keep our terms tight–and eat more chik’n!

  32. Minister, Laura DeGatana says:

    It is sad that the human race continues to choose evil over good, but the Bible says that is what will happend in the last days…and we are in the last days big time. Confusion will be unto all nations. Satan is the author of confusion and the destroyer of all things. Satan shows no mercy, and he doesnt care who you are, how rich, how poor, how young or old. He’s out to kill and destroy period. Everyone both saved and unsaved need to read Matthew and Revelation and take it very seriously. What is coming down the pike, to the entire world is the worse the world has ever known. Our Lord will not be mocked, we have sinned greatly, we continue to reject him, we contine to spit in His face. Know this…the Lord Jesus Chirst is not paying games. Its time for some knee power!

  33. Alan Noble says:

    Let me add that I think your concluding paragraph is dead on. Bravo.

  34. Chris says:

    I disagree with this article. I understand how the political parties that are saying they want nothing to do with an “anti-gay company” who releases a statement of traditional marriage suggests they are anti-Christian. I think the part of that statement that stands out to being anti-gay is the talk of believe of traditional marriage as if it is the only marriage they believe in which is a view by many right-wing Christians. There are also MANY Christians that believe not only believe two men or two woman can love each other but that they should also have the right to marry. THESE ARE ALSO CHRISTIAN VIEWS! I think it is a great and wonderful thing that they are in marriage with their 1st wives still. God bless their marriages! But when you need to tout that one marriage in a way that is trying to belittle other peoples’ connections/marriages you will have people that take offense. If I wasn’t trying to take issue at gay marriages especially in a time when it was a hot topic as it is now, you would need to follow-up with a remark on other marriages.

    I am pro-christian and pro-gay!

  35. Matthew says:

    Christophobia? Brother, my very existence renders this argument moot. I’m a gay Christian. There are many of us. We love Jesus, the Christ. The issue – which you’ve not mentioned here – is that Chick-Fil-A profits have funded reparative therapy programs, something that I know firsthand to be incredibly misguided, damaging, and dangerous. That is what the boycott is about – raising awareness so that people can make informed decisions about where their dollar goes. You are welcome to support the establishment of your choice, but don’t turn this into another attempt to make Christians the victim. There are many types of people, many types of Christians, and none of us own this faith. We all share in the grace of God. Amen.

  36. Kelly Gabriele says:

    I have been struggling with the posters and placards and facebook proclamations we Christians have made in response to this issue. While I understand defending our faith and Christ Himself, this has felt more like deepening a divide to me. Personally, friends of mine who have never been particularly political or religious have now in response taken a stand against Christians. My question is have we pushed people away from the love, mercy, grace and truth of Christ by voicing our support so vigorously? Are we saying “you need to behave! You are wrong” rather than “Christ loves you! Come and meet Him and watch Him work in your life!”

    I know God is all about marriage being between a man and a woman. I get that. But still, I don’t know. Somehow I am not thrilled about all of this. It is making me sad. I want to be where Christ wants me.

    Thank you for the thoughtful comments.

    1. David S. says:

      Here is the problem with your argument. We are not saying not to tell of Christ’s love but it is not telling them why they need Christ. Nobody will seek after the love of Christ (true love can only be found through Him) if they do not know why they need His saving Grace. To be dutiful disciples we must inform people of their need for the Savior which means we must point out the sin nature not only of them but all man kind. We must prevent from being self-righteous and show them that we too have “fallen short of the glory of God.” You can preach His love but you are holding up an idol if you fail to teach the whole Gospel message, they need to know there is a punishment that we all deserve called Hell (eternally separated from God), and that Hell is not a place that we will just have a party, it will be torture. However if they turn their lives to seek after God and His will, excepting Christ in all aspects (birth, death, burial and resurrection) and follow His commands (to the best we sinners can) then they can find eternal life in Christ.

      1. Excellent comment David! You said it well.

        Let’s note that the Apostle Paul sets out in Romans, from 1:18ff, to give the most detailed description of the gospel. He begins by stating that “the wrath of God” is being revealed to people and that especially against two sins: idolatry (which is the supreme expression of ungodliness) and homosexuality (which is the supreme expression of “unrighteousness”). Both show that people in their sin “suppress the truth.” The truth is that homosexuality is such an objectively and egregious violation of nature, that people should know it is wrong even without special revelation. But they suppress that truth and so show that they are depraved and in need of salvation.

  37. It Gets Better is a campaign to convince gay teenagers not to kill themselves. One shouldn’t have to be progressive in theology or politics to see that bullying is a serious problem–and the Church is so busy arguing about chicken that we can’t offer hurting teens anything more than “Jesus is better”? Sounds a lot like “Keep warm and well-fed” to me.

    “If the word homophobic has any meaning, then we should reserve it for egregious offenses against homosexuals” Egregious, huh? So unless the church has personally kicked a gay kid in the face, we shouldn’t be held accountable for our complicity in legal inequality, a cultural climate that fosters bullying, or the fact that gay teens are more likely than their straight peers to have their parents put them out on the street?

    Straight Christians don’t get to define homophobia, just like white people don’t get to decide what is racist. Rather than denying it or playing the tired Christian-as-persecuted-minority card, we could all stand to do a little listening to the experiences of our gay brothers and sisters.

  38. Man,
    thank you very much for that article. Thogh from germany, I’m following the stuff goin’ on with Chick-Fill-A! I was reading many stuff about homosexuality need to be defined as sin from a biblical perspective (which is the case acurally) but so little about Jesus holding up the grace card to every kind of sinner – and that his response was actually love in alle it’s ways, Ätill he ended up on a cross, dying for all kind of sinners. So love must be our card, grace must be our word – don’t they?

    Thank you a lot!

  39. Jasper Abbott says:

    If Chick-fila was a company with an openly Islamic message, you would have never heard of it. It would not become a multi-million dollar large fast food chain. The fact that Chick-fila has enough power that people are willing to protest it, is an indication of Christians power in our society, not an indication of their weakness. It is ridiculous to view this as persecution against Christians.

  40. Kent says:

    A number of things can be clarified:

    1) The boycott and outrage result from these things –
    A) the sum of Cathy’s comments regarding marriage
    B) Chick-fil-A’s support of traditional family orgs
    C) Chick-fil-A’s popularity among Christians and conservatives
    So this is a politically-motivated boycott (and therefore a politically-motivated response by conservatives)

    2) The debate over same-sex marriage is framed in terms of legal rights and social consequences, almost exclusively.

    3) The larger issue of homosexuality is framed in terms of moral rights.

    Why these last two points? What do they have to do with anything? The boycott is understandable from a political perspective: funding and consumption indicate political support. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if this were the only thing, the “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” would seem very juvenile (in some ways it still is). But there is also the outrage.

    This outrage stems, understandably (from a non-Christian perspective), from a perceived (or even actual), CFA support of organizations that seek to prevent the expansion of legal (civil) marriage rights to same-sex couples. And while Christian conservatives justify this by claiming to support traditional family values and a God-given marriage definition, this argument comes across very clearly as bigotry (which is seen in this case as Christians imposing Christian religious values on non-Christians in a secular society).

    This is about as far as our debates tend to go. But the issues run deeper than just politics or civil and legal rights. This is fundamentally a moral issue, and if we don’t bring it back to this level, we’ll never get beyond accusations of intolerance from both sides.

  41. KB says:

    This artcal gives great perspective! It is not always easy to stand up for what you believe in. That goes for both sides.

  42. Kent says:

    What is this moral basis:

    From general society, it is that homosexual attractions are natural, and are a normal aspect of human experience (as science tells us that these attractions are natural from birth). Therefore, there is no moral basis for condemning homosexual relationships. Rather, as a natural addition to human diversity, they should be embraced and celebrated. This of course stems from a humanist worldview that prizes human individuality and liberty, and makes humans their own moral authority.

    This is the moral basis of contemporary society (perhaps not as clearly articulated). But the problem is that Christian conservatives – far more conservative than they are Christian – do not respond from an equally grounded moral basis, premised on an equally holistic worldview. And so we offer the morally-shallow “traditional values” defense, or a proper but equally wooden “God defined marriage” defense, without getting to the heart of the matter: there is a sovereign God who created and defined *humanity* to be His, in the way that He defined. And because of the sin of our first parents, we have all inherited corrupted natures – that which is natural to us is yet corrupted. So whether it is an insatiable desire to kill, or a lustful appetite (whether heterosexual or homosexual), it is corrupted. Therefore it is not to be embraced or celebrated, but brought into conformity with God’s law. This should be the Christian argument, the moral argument that we use. And then, having this foundation, we can move on to civil, legal, and political ramifications, not forgetting the gospel which offers justification and redemption from sins.

    Notice the difference, also. Instead of focusing exclusively on homosexuality, what we address is the entire worldview and moral basis from which same-sex marriage is supported. It may still sound like bigotry to non-Christians, but in the very least, we ground our argument not in traditions or definitions, but in God’s sovereign authority

    1. Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that homosexuality is so obviously “contrary to nature” that even people without a special revelation from God (i.e. the Bible) should be able to recognize it’s perversity. That is, nature shows us that male and female were intended for sexual relations with each other. Therefore, homosexual relations are empirically, objectively unnatural, and an “error”.

      I think you’re right that there has been far too little Christian attempts to argue on the basis of a holistic natural revelation, which is exactly what Paul is doing in Romans 1. I’m not sure your right that we can down play our special objection to homosexuality because Paul makes it the example of depraved society suppressing moral truth.

  43. Phil says:

    The whole premise of this blog post is mistaken.

    Trevin Wax argues there is a double standard because there are two groups in similar circumstances [(1) muslims–and other religious faithful–who are against homosexuality, and (2) christians who are against homosexuality)], but there is only an uproar over Christians. Trevin concludes that this shows people aren’t really concerned about being against homosexuality, but rather against Christians.

    This is wrong.

    The two groups are not really in similar circumstances, as he claims. Muslims (and other religious faithful) hold no real power in this country. Christians do. Therefore it makes sense for there to be an uproar against Christians, and not Muslims. This is about being against those who have the power to deny gay rights, and not specifically against Christians (as he claims).

    (Indeed, when Congressmen/Legislators start banning same sex marriage because of their Muslim beliefs (or any other religion), then we can talk about the double standard.)

    1. Politically, Christians would be willing to team up with Muslims, Jews (as already Protestants ally with Catholics) to stem the tide of seeking to use marriage and politics generally to legitimize homosexuality. That is, I believe that Christians and conservative Muslims and Jews have identical political aspirations and would use power in exactly the same ways vis-a-vis homosexuality. So your argument fails.

      1. Phil says:

        I don’t understand your comment.

        Where are the Muslim and Jewish equivalents (in this country) to Focus on the Family, or the American Family Association, or any other large pro-Christian family group? Where is the Muslim and Jewish version of Exodus International? Where are the large, political powerful congregations of Muslims and Jews (who are against gay rights) that are the equivalent to the large Mega-Churches? Where are the Muslim and Jewish legislators voting against gay rights because of their religion? Show my the political power these Muslim and Jewish organizations and individuals hold.

        You cannot. Because they don’t hold any power to speak of.

      2. Phil says:


        The fact that conservative Muslim and Jewish groups share the same goals as conservative christian groups does not mean that these groups are powerful. My argument is fine.

        1. Ray H. says:

          Haha. Excellent point. Any way to get this comment up top?

        2. It really doesn’t matter whether the groups are “powerful.” That’s an irrelevant category thrown in to confuse the matter and justify anti-Christian bigotry.

          Besides, you’re wrong. If conservative Muslims, Jews, and Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) would ally themselves together, they would be powerful.

          1. Phil says:

            It most certainly matters whether the groups are powerful. It reasonably explains why there is an uproar over conservative Christian views and not conservative Muslim or Jewish views. Conservative Muslim and Jewish views simply do not play a role in any meaningful way in our society (that is, they have no “power”), as explained above.

            Also, you keep bringing up a scenario where these other groups would or could become powerful. That isn’t the current world we live in. And my argument is explaining why the uproar has been directed at conservative Christians, in the current world we live in.

          2. That’s purely arbitrary. Whether someone’s view’s are “bigoted”, etc., is NOT dependent on whether that person is part of a powerful group, as though there is one ethical standard for those in large, politically connected groups, and another for minorities. It doesn’t “explain” why there is an uproar over expressions of Christian values. The original article does that.

            Besides, you’re fundamentally wrong about the American political system. Christian don’t “hold power”. The people do. You apparently aren’t aware that we vote in this country. If conservative Muslims, Jews and just clear-thinking people who don’t like unnatural relationships being legitimized, vote along with Christians for a similar agenda then they all “have power.”

          3. Phil says:

            Of course whether someone’s views are “bigoted”, et.c, is NOT dependent on whether that person is part of a powerful group. I agree completely. I am not arguing that is.

            But the fact that conservative Christians are plentiful, and powerful, in this country explains why the uproar has been directed at them, rather than conservative Muslims or conservative Jews. The original article is wrong to state that because the uproar hasn’t been directed at conservative Jews and conservative Muslims, it isn’t really about gay rights but instead is about “Jesus” (which seems to really mean persecuting Christians).

            With regard to your second paragraph, yes, we vote in this country. As a group, there are many, many more Christians who vote on these issues (I believe I read somewhere 17 Republican Congressmen from the House of Representatives signed a statement in support of Chick Fil A), then there are Muslims or Jews who vote on these issues. This only reinforces my point. As a group, the number of conservative Muslims and conservative Jews who vote on this issue is very small. That is why there is little/no outrage against them.

            (As an aside, I am willing to say that the 17 Republican Congressmen who supported Chick Fil A are Christians who “hold power.” If you don’t think they have any power, than we’ve lost common ground to hold a discussion.)

          4. Again, with nearly admirable tenacity you continue to repeat the idea that numbers and power somehow excuse greater attacks on those with numbers and power. But it’s fundamentally mistaken.

            The uproar is about Jesus because to be a follower of Jesus is to believe what His apostles taught about homosexuality in Romans 1:18ff and 1 Corinthians 6, etc.

          5. Phil says:

            I am not “excusing” the attacks. I am challenging the premise of Trevin Wax’s article.

            And I have to continue to repeat my argument because you seem to disagree with it, without being able to explain why it is mistaken.

  44. Johnnie says:

    Hmmm. I guess that the First United Church of Loomis, a reconciling church, is Christophobic because they have adopted this formal position: The First United Methodist Church of Loomis is a Reconciling Congregation. We are called by Christ, empowered by God to love and serve all God’s people. Recognizing the sacred worth and dignity of all persons, we welcome all, regardless of race, age, ethnic origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental capacity, education, economic or family status to full participation in the life and ministries of our church community. We continue to work toward Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Doors.” I wonder if the author of this article worships Christ or if he has distilled Jesus and his teachings down to his own personal preferences.

    1. The true Lord Jesus has spoken to us in the Word of God, having appointed the Apostle Paul to write for Him, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to tell us what He says about homosexuality:

      “God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26f.)

      If the “Jesus” your “church” worships doesn’t believe and teach that, then it is your “church”, not Mr. Wax, who have a Jesus made to fit your “personal preferences”.

  45. Clint says:

    I’d like to share with you a few words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, who was, might I add, a Christian preacher who lead one of the most successful movements for civil rights in history. Following Luther’s quote is further emphasis from Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, as well as, thoughts from Ravi Zacharias, one of the greatest apologist of our time. In between, I add my own views and concerns. For me though, the troubling fact is that no matter what is said many people will see my efforts as discrimination guided by pure hatred. But I have learned that’s just the nature of addressing a subject like this. But please know, my goal is not to put anyone down or cut them out, but to bring out the best in others in this conversation through the use of logic, reason, and love.

    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The great military leaders of the past have gone and their empires have crumbled and burned to ashes but the empire of Jesus built solidly and majestically on the foundation of love… is still growing. May we solemnly realize that we will never be sons and daughters of our heavenly father until we love our enemies and pray for those that persecute us just as He did for us.

    The relevance of what I have said to the crisis in race relations should be readily apparent. There will be no permanent solution to the, race problem until oppressed men develop the capacity to love their enemies. The darkness of racial injustice will be dispelled only by the light of forgiving love. For more than three centuries American Negroes have been battered by the iron rod of oppression, frustrated by day and bewildered by night by unbearable injustice and burdened with the ugly weight of discrimination. Forced to live with these shameful conditions, we are tempted to become bitter and to retaliate with a corresponding hate. But if this happens, the new order we seek will be little more than a duplicate of the old order. We must in strength and humility meet hate with love.”

    What Dr. King is saying here is that the solution to race related problems is to meet hatred with love. He actually says to meet physical force with soul force… the ability to wear someone down by your capacity to suffer. So in essence, Dr. King wanted the oppressed to absorb the oppression because that is what Jesus did. “They spit upon Him… they beat Him… the ridiculed Him… but he did not retaliate.” Listen to what Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian says about the mis-guided anger of those that wish to persecute.

    “If you see Jesus absorbing our disordered love (our unrighteous anger/selfish motives/distorted truth/our prejudices) and responding with cosmic gentleness, that, will empower you to go out into this dog-eat-dog world filled with righteous anger (standing against injustice). What a culture of miss-placed anger we live in.”

    What Keller is saying is that people are angry about the wrong things… they have mis-placed anger and that a believer has the responsibility to meet that anger with peace. Some of the mis-guided anger is fueled by the reasoning that to disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage is injustice and discriminatory. But in Biblical truth, their view and stance against those that disagree is really a distorted stand against what they believe is a universal truth… that homosexuality is morally right and therefore should be accepted. It should be accepted just as a person’s Race should be accepted. However, the issue of Race is not a an issue of morality… whether something is right or wrong. Someone’s Race should always be accepted because it does not violate what God what God has called sacred. So to compare racism to discrimination against homosexuality is a distorted comparison and flawed reasoning. Someone with this view cannot understand why Christians are against racism but cannot support homosexuality or gay marriage. It seems hypocritical and a double standard. This, to them, is hatred and injustice… someone standing against homosexuality is just as discriminatory as someone standing against someone’s Race. The reason why Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s mission was a justifiable mission was the very truth that evil people where, in fact, attacking God’s sacredness… someone’s Race.

    Let me share with you a few words from Ravi Zacharias.

    Ravi Zacharias says, “The reason Christians are against racism is that someone’s race is sacred. Someones ethnicity is sacred… you cannot violate it. My race is sacred… your race is sacred… I dare not violate it. The reason we react against the issue of homosexuality is that sexuality is sacred too. You cannot violate it. So why would we treat one sacred and the other dis-sacred. Sex is a sacred gift of God. I cannot no longer justify an aberration of it in someone else’s life than i can justify my proclivity to go beyond my marital boundaries. Every able bodied man will tell you that temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with the love of your spouse… probably not because you can love your spouse with a 100% desire to love the person but the human body reacts to the sight… entertained by the imagination… and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter. They’re not… they only leave you emptier. So a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition or that proclivity. That goes across the board for all sexuality.

    When God created mankind and womankind it was His plan not our plan. It is extraordinary what God says when He said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone.’ Well man was not living alone… God was with him. But why did He say that? He created the mystique and the majesty and the charm and the complimentary nature of womankind in a way that made it possible for her to meet his emotional needs that God Himself put only within her… outside of himself… from himself… in her… in that complementariness. And vise-versa for the man.

    So you take that sacred commitment… it is a design by God.

    Well someone might say, ‘you don’t know what it is like to have that disposition and proclivity… no I’ve talked to people who do. One of the greatest saints of recent memory was Henry Nouwen. He was a professor of psychology at Harvard University. Some years ago he went to St.Petersberg in Russia and there he went into the famous Hermitage Museum and he saw the painting of Rembrandt of The Return of The Prodigal Son. He looked at that painting and couldn’t get his eyes off of it. Not for one minute… not for two minutes… not for one hour. He sat in front of that painting for three hours. It changed his life. He came back to Harvard, resigned his position and went to work for the mentally retarded in Toronto. He disclosed in his closing book there that he was dispositionally a homosexual but never fulfilled that for the sake of Christ. So I say to someone that has that disposition, ‘yes’ it has to be tough… it has to be tough, but sometimes we renounce our dispositions for the sake of Christ and just wait and hope and trust for the possibility that He will give us that resistance.”

    What Ravi Zacharias is proclaiming is that as Christian’s, we see homosexuality as a violation of what God has called sacred… sex intended to be between one man and one woman within the confines of a covenant marriage. So as a Christian, this is your reasoning to defend what God has called sacred. And I ask, how can you support the violation of sacred sexuality? Are you scared of being persecuted yourself? Are you fearful that your reasoning is not sound and not socially acceptable? Let me share this with you… you are free to believe whatever you want to believe but God does state clearly in scripture that homosexuality is a sin against His very nature and purpose of sexuality. But don’t run off to quickly with that truth and start pounding peoples beliefs because He lists many many other sins. He even says for us to remove the plank from our own eye before trying to remove the speck from someone else’s. If our heart and our conscious is clear before God… then we have all the more reason to logically and lovingly stand against homosexuality without harming the individuals essence as a human being.

    We have an opportunity where you too can hate segregation but love the segregationist… hate the miss-guided perversion of sexuality but love the homosexual. Where you too can hate sin but love the sinner. You’re free to do it because He did it to you. And then you too will be an agent for redemptive gentleness in this world.

    But many will say, why do you Christians go around policing the world and hammering people with the Bible. Just as Ravi Zacharias stated, “I cannot no longer justify an aberration of it in someone else’s life than I can justify my proclivity to go beyond my marital boundaries.” We are agents of true freedom… a life lived for something greater than ourselves. We are messengers of hope and peace and the better way of life. The reason we support traditional marriage is that in traditional marriages operating under the guidance of God’s truth and love are families that harbor the continuation of truth and love. In traditional marriage, the person has the freedom to enjoy God’s design for the ultimate sexual experience… soulful and loving sex with one partner for a life-time. Traditional marriage gives the ultimate gift of raising children, whether by birth or adoption, by providing that child with the intended design of a mother and father for the emotional and psychological health and development of that child. Traditional marriage gives two people a life-time of learning God’s forgiveness for each other and others… that after forgiving their conscience is free. This is the intended design for marriage. It is the purest way to fulfill our sexuality if we called to do so, or, like Ravi Zacharias pointed out concerning Henry Nouwen, to never fulfill the proclivity for the sake of Christ.

    Lastly, let me say that ‘yes’ there are those out there going about their stance against homosexuality in terrible ways (killings, beatings, mockery, lies, hatred). But understand that these people do not represent the truth of Christianity. Real Christians absorb the mis-guided anger and life-styles of another. Whether it be a co-worker, mother, father, child, spouse, friend. We see past the violation and do our best to guide, first, our own emotions, then secondly, our thoughts to discern God’s truth in the matter. We do not hate the individual but seek ways to understand and nurture them towards the love of Christ.

    So Christians, let me summarize. The homosexual has faced horrible persecution for their life-style choices and in no way should those choices be met with physical force. They have endured hard-ships beyond what we can imagine… they have been mocked and ridiculed. Some have been abused both physically and sexually. Some have been treated very unfairly and we are in no way to add to their hurt. But standing up for God’s word with grace and truth is not persecution on homosexuality. It is not hatred. You are not bigot. Do not let anyone’s words bully you into cowering against what God has called sacred. Find ways to guide. Find ways to love and encourage someone with this disposition that they too can hang on just as someone with a drug problem can hang on. Many will tell you that a homosexual in a relationship is fully content and happy and that is reason enough to accept their life-style. But where do you draw the line? How do we go back once we’ve started to treat this issue as sacred and the other as dis-sacred if they are both sacred? The truth is… if you receive a backlash for saying no against homosexuality and gay marriage… in the eyes of God… you are the one persecuted and you have just as much of a responsibility as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to meet physical and mentally abusive force with soul force.

  46. Thomas Paine says:

    The idea of “Christophobia” is ridiculous and based on the flawed premise Christian religious teachings are an acceptable argument in a debate over whether or not the government should recognize same sex marriage.

    The government recognizes no official religion, and is tasked with fairly governing people of many and no faiths. Government laws should reflect the most current understanding of justice and equality, regardless of whether or not they conflict with religious traditions.

    Religious groups seeking to codify their beliefs into law are attempting to impose their beliefs on citizens of other or no faiths. Within your church you may be free to define marriage however you like, but your religious definition holds no water in the eyes of the law.

    1. Matt Poe says:

      Brilliant. Couldn’t have said it better myself

    2. Objection to homosexuality is not based on scripture but on nature.

      Many Christians have lost sight of the fact that the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 1 is that homosexuality is so plainly “contrary to nature” that even a person without special revelation should be able to recognize it’s perversity. Therefore the justification of homosexuality is evidence of how depravity causes people to “suppress the truth.”

      1. Thomas Paine says:

        For most heterosexuals, myself included, homosexuality seems very “contrary to nature”. I could never imagine myself being with another man, and many aspects of gay culture are not appealing to me. However, what works for me obviously does not work for homosexuals, for whom it does feel very natural to be in a same sex relationship. Regardless of the cause of that feeling, there is no secular reason for the government to prevent these two consenting individuals from getting married and denying access to the civic benefits it affords.

        Your opinion on what is “contrary to nature” is meaningless in terms of morality and civil law; interracial marriage was considered “contrary to nature” before being exposed as nothing more than racism. An opinion on what constitutes “contrary to nature” is no reason to deny equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

        1. Thomas,
          We’re speaking on two different levels. Your comments are entirely about subjectivity and your personal experience. My comments are based on two things: (1) natural law and (2) scripture (divine law). Both are objective and universal and in the case of homosexuality both are clear and strong.

          That homosexuality is “contrary to nature” is not an opinion but a fact, an objective law of the universe, built into creation by the Creator.

          1. Thomas Paine says:

            The two things you base your argument on hold no weight in the eyes of a secular government. Scripture is only considered “divine law” to those who believe it is, and the Constitution makes it explicitly clear that religious beliefs should not be used in creating laws that Americans of all or no faiths must follow. You may consider divine law to be objective, but to many people of other or no faiths, your divine law is entirely a human invention. Even to those who agree that your divine law is true, it is no basis for governing a country of people with many or no faiths.

            As for natural law, you fail to define what natural law is, because there is no definition of natural law. Who is any person to define what is natural? Homosexuals are born into this world by the same natural process as heterosexuals, and same sex relationships feel as natural to them as opposite sex relationships to heterosexuals. Much of what humans do today could be considered unnatural, such as erecting buildings, synthesizing plastics and medicine, and genetic engineering. Your definition of what is natural and what is not is subjective and is based on your prejudices. It is not an objective definition that other people should be forced to subscribe to or live their life in accordance with.

          2. Thanks for the classic articulation of post-modernism.

            Again, you’re appealing to subjectivity, feelings, opinions, etc. It doesn’t matter if everyone on the planet rejects the authority of scripture; if the Bible is considered myths. It is still divine law and absolute truth. And it condemns homosexual practice.

            “Natural law” is the law revealed in nature. (That should be self-evident). The natural law argument against homosexuality is just as clear. Anatomy and reproduction empirically tell us that sex was intended for male and female, not of two people of the same sex. Your statement that that is “subjective” is simply false. Some things simply are objectively natural even if the whole planet refuses to accept it.

            It doesn’t matter that many people deny that. That is exactly what Paul is getting at in Romans 1:18ff, that (1) it is clear that homosexuality (as well as idolatry) are wrong and “contrary to nature” but that people practice it any way because they “suppress the truth.” They suppress it with the very same arguments you are wielding: that feeling, what someone claims is what “feels natural” to them, is more weighty that was actually is empirically natural.

            I once spoke with Tony Campolo who casts doubt on the objectivity of what is natural. I thought he was being disingenuous and muddle-headed. I still think so.

          3. Thomas Paine says:

            The Bible is not divine law and absolute truth to those who do not believe it is. Saying something is by definition divine and absolute is not providing support or evidence, but is a meaningless tautology. Any arguments from the Bible are just as relevant as arguments from a children’s book to someone who does not believe the Bible is divine. Furthermore, even if you do accept the Bible as divine law, the government does not govern based on religious law, but secular law that applies to people of all or no faiths.

            As for natural law, just as heterosexual individuals are compelled by nature to seek out partners of the opposite sex, homosexual individuals are compelled by nature to seek out partners of the same sex. The existence of homosexuality is by definition natural- they were born to heterosexual couples through natural reproduction.

  47. Corin says:


    So the example you use to prove this double standard in your article is an invented scenario that you “can’t imagine” happening?


    How about some concrete examples. Heck, some of the comments above do a better job whipping out some nearly-sourced proofs. Read’em over.

    Please be more careful. The appeal to common sense is not an argument that proves anything. It’s the avoidance of a real argument.

    Oh..and c’mon. WE’RE persecuted? <>

    Christians are common targets because we ARE the dominant faith. And sometimes criticism doesn’t come because we represent Jesus. Sometimes it comes because we’re doing the OPPOSITE of Jesus’ work. Persecution does not, in itself, prove we’re on the right track. Sometimes it just means we’re being selfish judgmental prigs who mask our language in nicer terms.

  48. ck says:

    “Though Chick-fil-A hires homosexuals and serves homosexuals (“with pleasure,” no doubt), the company and its president were suddenly labeled “homophobic” and “anti-gay” for articulating the traditional vision for marriage that has been the norm for thousands of years. If the word homophobic has any meaning, then we should reserve it for egregious offenses against homosexuals – not throw the label on anyone who has a conviction about what marriage is.”

    This is really well said. Good thoughts. The irony is killing me. In the land of the free, it is no longer acceptable [or fashionable] to possess personal opinions? It illustrates our lost understanding of the definition of “tolerance”. “Tolerance” is not being asked by Chick-fil-A’s opponents; they are asking for assimilation of their position (in effect, “conversion”).

    1. Robert says:

      Yes it is about Jesus- but you missed some other comments coming from Cathy. He has stated that those for gay marriage have a proud and arrogant attitude. He also said they are inviting judgment on this nation. He also thanks God that they are a family-owned and led business in which they are all married to their first wives. What would Jesus say about those comments? It is not only about the sexual ethic, but the frustration that Christians do not behave like Christians in the public sphere. If you judge someone like that you have no room to love them. It seems Christians are being deceived to replay the Pharisee and tax collector parable. I struggle judging my Christian brother rather than praying for and being grieved by a perceived lack of love.

      1. kate says:

        Robert, couldn’t agree more. As the mother of a (not practicing) gay son, who loves Jesus very much and wants to follow him, it is very hard to see Christians enjoying their anger over the injustice so much that they can’t slow down to love and to pray and to reflect Christ.

      2. mel says:

        I have more anger for the people that accuse other people of anger when they are merely showing the courage to speak the truth.

        I am twice divorced and I find nothing offensive in what he said because it is the truth. I’m a sinner covered in the blood of Jesus and I know that I have lived my life foolishly and selfishly in a way that has kept me from having God’s best. That is no one else’s fault but my own. I don’t need some wimpy person looking to pacify, to water down the gospel for me. I do not need to feel good about my sin. I’m forgiven.

        If you take away one truth of scripture then you might as well take it all away. It demeans the cross.

        It’s like “oh that’s okay Jesus, we will just legalize this behavior so you don’t have to die for it”.

  49. I don’t know that I’ve seen your full range of views on this topic. I have however previously praised the very carefully nuanced position against same-sex erotic activity that Tim Keller put on Youtube. In my opinion, any flak one would get from that very narrow position would be actual and true martyrdom, the kind of stuff that Paul spoke of. No doubt a fraction of the Chik-fil-A protesters are mad at this kind of witness, per se: this is the “offense of the cross”.

    Now comes in the good ol’ boy groups that Chik-fil-A proudly supports. They are no Tim Keller. Did Tim ever say anything about gays not being able to keep biological kids, or being a threat to the country? Maybe I’ll have to go back and listen to the interview. Is anyone, any one person, “even more mad” at CfA because of the statements about keeping biol kids? Do you tell that one person that their problem is ultimately with Christ? I shudder.

  50. Rick says:

    I think people misunderstand what he means by “the biblical definition of the family unit.” I think it would be helpful to explain how the bible describes families and relationships, so those speaking out against Christianity can better understand what it is he’s promoting.

  51. Megan says:

    I also think that Christians need to be careful. We are told that their will be adversity to the Gospel. We are not to be intentionally offensive, but God’s Word is offensive to the world. We know that people won’t like it, so we can’t cry about it when opposition comes. It’s still time to rejoice in the Lord.

  52. Jason Kolar says:

    Man… even here, on GOSPEL COALITION we are fighting… can we agree? Can we love eachother?

    I am tired of christians fighting with eachother… What if we stepped back from whether or not christians are oppressed or not, hold to your oppinion but focus more on the gospel! Focus on the love of Christ to those believers!

    I loved the last section of this article, and I couldnt agree with it more

  53. Chris David says:

    Why drag Rahm Immanuel into this? Rahm Immanuel is a Jew and has even done military service in the Israeli Army. He is one of God’s chosen people, and to write about him in such a negative light is a sin!

  54. Rachel M says:

    Jesus’ ministry was radical, yes, but he certainly didn’t have a “radical sexual ethic.” It was the same sexual ethic that was found throughout the Hebrew lands.

  55. Roger says:

    It has nothing to do with Jesus, or Mohammed etc..

    it has to do with the fact that one groups of peoples OPINION, based WITHOUT ANY FACTS OF ANY KIND can cause OTHER PEOPLE harm.

    That is the problem.

    it is great you believe in Jesus/God.. but since you can NEVER EVER EVER PROVE AT ALL THAT ANY OF IT IS TRUE

    Please then don’t try to affect my life with it.

  56. Clayton says:

    I applaud this article as the best, most articulate Christian response to this debate. This is why I disagree.

    I should preface this by saying I’m unsure of my religious beliefs, but I cannot believe in a God who would damn for actions that hurt nobody, such as homosexuality. I also realize many of the things said against Chick-fil-A were hurtful and unnecessary.

    Nobody is attacking Cathy’s or anyone’s right to practice Christian sexual ethics. But he has no right to impose those ethics on anyone else. Through his comments, and much more importantly, through his funding of anti-gay organizations, he is hampering the right of gays to marry and be regarded as equals. (And I believe they have a right to legal marriage, because the government has no secular reason to deny it. Churches can recognize whatever they want.)

    For this, I think I’m justified in calling Cathy intolerant. If he had instead spoken and worked against interracial marriages, which was once very unChristian, I doubt he would have many people on his side.

    Finally, I’m sorry I won’t be eating at Chick-fil-A anymore. It’s so good!

    1. Rob says:

      “I should preface this by saying I’m unsure of my religious beliefs, but I cannot believe in a God who would damn for actions that hurt nobody, such as homosexuality.”

      Um okay, so you might believe in a “god” but that “god” would not be the one of biblical Christianity. But that’s okay, God does not need your belief to get his glory. He needs nothing, you however need salvation.

      “Through his comments, and much more importantly, through his funding of anti-gay organizations, he is hampering the right of gays to marry and be regarded as equals. ”

      Does the owner of Chick-fil-A not have the right to give to whatever organizations he deems to be a worthy cause? Apparently not.

      “For this, I think I’m justified in calling Cathy intolerant. If he had instead spoken and worked against interracial marriages, which was once very unChristian, I doubt he would have many people on his side.”

      Apparently you need to read Voddie Baucham’s article entitled “Gay is Not the New Black”

  57. Katie says:

    As a liberal Christian, I have a real issue with you saying that my boycotting Chick-Fil-A is “Anti-Jesus.” I’m not “persecuting” other Christians. It’s other Christians who criticize me for being liberal, and non-Christians who criticize me for their misconceptions of what I must based on what the conservative right preaches.

    But you know what? I’m a big girl, and I’ve got my big girl panties on. I don’t consider someone disagreeing with me as persecution, and I’m strong enough in myself, my opinions, and my God to stand up for what I believe in. In fact, I’m called by God to do that.

    Cathy has the absolute right to state his opinion. And in this capitalistic society that right-wingers like so much, I have the absolute right to show my disapproval with his opinion by never eating at a restaurant he runs. That makes neither him nor I a bad Christian.

    1. Courtney says:

      I LOVE this response, and agree with you entirely. Ironically, what I see more in this discussion is Christians persecuting other Christians for having different opinions about issues that are not central to the Gospel! Can we all extend a little grace to each other and trust that each of us are trying to be as faithful to the Jesus we love as we can be? Gosh, if we treat each other this poorly, I don’t know why anyone would want to sign up to be a part of this body! I can stand with Cathy as a brother in Christ, respect his opinions, and still disagree. What a thought!

      1. Katie says:

        Thank you, Courtney! I agree!

    2. Someone is a “bad Christian” if they (1) claim to be a “Christian” but then (2) don’t follow the teachings of the Lord Jesus (including those given through His apostles, like Paul in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6).

      1. Lyn Barrett says:

        Judge not lest ye be judged, John. Show me where Jesus taught against homosexuality.

        1. dave says:

          Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary offers a lot of detail to think about;

          1. Lyn Barrett says:

            I’ve read Gagnon. He doesn’t impress me.

        2. Andy says:

          Show me where Jesus permits or condones any sexual conduct outside of a one man- one woman for life marriage.
          Jesus also didn’t teach against bestialist, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest (not comparing gays to these, but just taking a sampling of different sexual preferences), so you can’t conclude that silence is consent.

          1. Katie says:

            He also didn’t say it was ok to cut your hair at the temples or round your beards. You can’t conclude silence is dissent, either.

          2. Andy says:

            The NT is pretty clear on what is acceptable in terms of sexual ethics. No ambituity there. No blessing of gay relationships.
            You don’t have issues in the NT about the minutiea of OT jewish behaviour, but there is clear instruction on how we are to relate in our sexual relationships. there wasn’t a change that would open the door to gay reltaionships being within the gamut of what God permits.

      2. Hi Lyn Barrett,

        The Lord Jesus selected Apostles (“Sent Ones”) who spoke and wrote for Him, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So when the Apostle Paul calls homosexuality “contrary to nature”, an “error” in Romans 1 and lists homosexuality, in 1 Corinthians 6, among sins that exclude one from the Kingdom of God, then that has all the force of the Lord Jesus Himself speaking. Paul was speaking for Christ and to reject what Paul writes is to reject the Lord Jesus.

        1. Katie says:

          Jesus DIDN’T select Paul; Jesus never met him. Paul was a human being who made mistakes too. I don’t consider him the perfection of Christianity others seem to. Paul is not God, Jesus is God, and he said not one word against it. It Jesus had felt it was important, he would have.

          1 Corinthians lists the other sins that exclude people from heaven. Adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanders, swindlers. Even if you’ve only had sex with your (first) spouse, never been drunk, never stole so much as a candy, and don’t drink, I’m pretty sure we’ve ALL been greedy and spoke against others.

          Paul was speaking TO the Romans and Corinthians, and his message has to be viewed in cultural terms.

          1. David S. says:

            Do you believe the complete Bible is the infallible word of God? That though there are many different writers they were inspired by God to write what they did? Or do you instead just listen to the words in red and through out the rest of the Bible? If you only follow the words in red then you do not follow the God of the Bible. You say that Jesus did not select Paul and then you say Jesus is God, did God not select Paul? What about to road to Damascus when Saul was traveling and persecuting Christians. You talk about 1 Corinthians well look at chapter 9 verse 1 “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?” Paul says he has seen Jesus. But wait what about Acts 9 verses 3-5 “3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,” So Jesus spoke to SaulPaul.
            He are all human and “all have sinned” none of us are denying that; however, if you follow the teachings of the Bible of Gods word you cannot just pick and choose what you want to follow, if you do that you are creating an idol.
            I ask that you please examine your heart and examine what you think the Bible is. Is it God’s word or is it man’s word?

          2. Katie says:

            I believe the Bible is the word of God filtered through men and culture. To understand the Bible you must understand the people who wrote it and the world they lived in. When I find conflict between parts of the Bible, I look to what Jesus said, and go by that. I find conflict between a loving God who makes rules to protect us and a God who makes rules against acts which do nothing to harm anyone. I believe that what Jesus said is the DIRECT word of God, unfiltered by man, though slightly filtered by culture. Jesus said a lot about sex, and nothing about homosexuals. That, to me, is telling.

            Ok, you got me on the Acts quote. I’ll admit that I didn’t look it up. But I don’t believe that God’s calling of someone means He agrees with everything they say or do. Hey, he called both of us, and we disagree, so He must disagree with one of us.

            You know what bothers me most about your comments, and this article in general? The assumption that you or Trevin Wax need to “save” me from my liberal beliefs. I may disagree with you, your stance may make me mad, but I accept you as a brother in Christ. Why can’t you? My comments were on John’s stance, not his or Wax’s faith. You know nothing about me, by beliefs beyond this, my morals, how I serve the Lord, yet you judge me. I don’t understand that.

          3. David S. says:

            I can guarantee God does not agree with all that we do because we are flawed sinful humans, with that said I believe God can work through us to do His will. In the case of the Bible I believe He had the authors write exactly what He wanted them to and that it was not their opinions but His. Katie I do belief that both you and I still need to study the Word of God a lot more to understand it better. I am not trying to “get you.”

            Concerning beliefs Jesus tells us in Acts 1:8 “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” We are to spread the Gospel message of Christ and while Christ does represent love (true love can only be found through Him), He is also just and those that reject His word or distort it for gain will have their place in the Lake of Fire. It does not matter how good you are “for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).”

            Though I do not know you I have a love for you and all that are reading this and if I see something that is contrary to what the Bible says I feel the need to let you know. I cannot change your view points all I can do is tell you what the Bible says, with that said I am not above reproach and if I take something out of context please let me know and I will pray about it and study His word to verify. I have several friends that are Christians and vote democrat, however I will not get into political view points here.

            I do accept you as a sister that is why I ask you study your bible closer, just as I need to do. I ask that you not just read about His love but also His wrath and judgement. Are there biblical standpoints that Wax and I disagree on, I am sure there are.

      3. Katie says:

        First of all, I do follow the teaching of God, to the best of my abilities. Just because I don’t follow your interpretation of the teachings doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Second, are you suggesting you follow all the teachings to the letter? Because no one on earth can do that. I sure can’t, and take comfort in it, since Jesus didn’t come to save the righteous, but the sinners. Third, you have no right to judge my faith, just as no right to judge yours. That’s God’s job.

  58. Roberta Hylton says:

    Christophobia? Please spare me! By far and away, Christianity is the predominant religion in this country. Let’s get the facts straight – this isn’t Rome and Christians are not the persecuted here. However, there are many individuals who call themselves Christians who aim to persecute others because they are gay or lesbian, Muslim, atheist, or anything that runs contrary to their notion of conservatism and Christianity. If this is “really about Jesus,” then we should all make sure powerful wealthy men such as Don Cathy know we stand with those who truly have been and still are persecuted. Mr. Cathy has a right to be a bigot, and those people who are offended by such bigotry have a right to take their money elsewhere to avoid indirectly supporting neo-philistine organizations with agendas that are anti-gay and generally socially draconian.

    You may be right that this is “really about Jesus,” but it doesn’t have squat to do with “Christophobia”. Mr. Cathy’s sentiments about homosexuality would be bigoted, no matter the cloak of his religion. Mr. Cathy is not the persecuted here. In fact he is the persecutor. His power and wealth have the ability to influence the outcome our social construct, wherein we either deny certain rights and liberties to some or ensure equality for all. Mr. Cathy has voiced his position and you better believe he puts he put his mouth is.

  59. Reality Check says:

    You have to be kidding me. This has nothing to do with “Christphobia”. This is literally playing the victim game. Problem people have with this idea is not that you just believe something, its that you want your belief to be a part of the legal system. No one should care what your beliefs just as you should not care who someone is married to. The comments that Cathy that you left out,

    “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

    That is the part several people have a problem with. This is similar to that religious figure who said Katrina was the wrath of god or the Westboro Baptist Church at soldiers funerals blaming their death on gods wrath. This type of talk fuels the desire to d-legitimize a lifestyle that you do not agree with. Why wouldn’t gods wrath struck when we killed legions of Indians, or Africans as they made their way west on slave ships and most of the slaves died before reaching the new land. Why not when the Indians were given blankets with small pox. Why not when we sent Japanese Americans into Camps during WWII? This talk is very similar to what the White Citizens Council sounded like in the 60s.

    Don’t buy it folks, I know if feels good to feel like your the underdog and everyone is against you. It makes you want to grab a hold of your conviction even stronger. Make no mistake, this is, and there is no such thing as Christphobia. When there are laws banning you from going to church, then we can talk.

  60. Mike Weaks says:

    I stand with Chick-Fil-a and the issues at hand, but doesn’t it seem to be a rabbit trail taking us away from the gospel. Why do allow society to take us away from Jesus in a conversation and allow our righteous indignation take center stage? If we were only so bold to preach the gospel as we are to take a stand on moral issues. I only know one thing, “Christ and him crucified.”

    1. When Paul began explaining the gospel in Romans, starting in 1:18ff, one of the first things he did was to point to homosexuality as an example of human depravity.

  61. Jack says:

    There is indeed a large miss-communication here. The whole LGBT vs. Christianity bit is getting really old. No one’s right or wrong here, people need to stop treading on others beliefs and using their religion or causes as an excuse to be right. These media outlets are one of those excuses, they are yet again not helping in resolving any issue that becomes blown out of proportion, the mainstream media just propagates and purports information as always getting everyone all upset about nothing and then connect it with the coming election. Like any politician is going to care about solving social issues or the economic crisis. All they care about is war, control, and money. Forget those old fools, they can’t save us. Look I get it, we’re all angry, we want to find the blame, but your way isn’t working. Let us, the people, shake hands and move on to more pressing troubles this world has. No more fighting, no more squabbling. It’s time to grow up and open our eyes to the consequences of mankind.

  62. I do see a very interesting point here. I do want to contend that we should make Christophobia more about Christ than Christianity. That is what Christianity is point to, and I do believe that we should just go ahead and make Christ the center of that definition. I would, however, point out that that might change how we view the issue. Are they against Christ or against multiple, hostile comments from certain sections of the Church. You’re ending words will be a conversation starter, but we will need to focus on defining how Jesus is better too. Not completely disagreeing with you, just offering some tweeks.

    1. Oh, and as a side note, Muslims are VERY ostracized in my neck of the woods.

  63. Amy says:

    I think it is about Jesus. I think Jesus would go and sit with those who are are marginalized-those treated as less. The LGBT community is treated by less by the Christian community-not just because of the desire to have “traditional marriage”. Sometimes I wonder if as Christian community we are so much loser to being Pharisees than we would like to admit.

  64. Stella says:

    How can the boycott be about Jesus, when Jesus never condemned homosexuality?

    1. Yes He did. He sent Apostles to speak for Him and they called homosexuality “contrary to nature”, “error” and a sin that excludes the unrepentant from the Kingdom of God (Romans 1:18ff, 1 Cor. 6). The Lord Jesus condemned homosexuality through them.

  65. Net says:

    You have several logical fallacies in your argument.
    1) If homophobia means – “the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility.”

    Then Christianophobia means – “the hatred or fear of Christians – that is, Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity.” Let’s be real. There is nothing scary about a Christian.

    As a side note, PHOBIA connotes “fear” not an “anti- sentiment.” That would be prejudice, racist, hostile, but not scary or hateful.

    2) If a Muslim had said this statement:

    “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

    It would have read as:

    “We are very much supportive of the family – the KORAN definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to ALL our first WIVES (PLURAL). We give ALLAH thanks for that. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank ALLAH we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on KORAN principles.”

    If a Muslim had said this – it would have(a) been illegal-America does not recognize the Muslim family unit; (b) been wrong-because they don’t live in a country where they can share their family values; (c) pissed a shit ton more people off.

    I didn’t finish reading the article, otherwise I would have found several more logical fallacies. But I realized after my second point that arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is a waste of time.

    1. Hi Net,

      You didn’t point out any logical fallacies in the first point (or the second, for that matter but that’s not even worth the effort to deconstruct), you simply differed with the definition stated. Unless you’re presenting a commonly recognized authority, such as a respected dictionary or encyclopedia, you’ve done nothing other than say “my opinion is different.” That’s not a “logical fallacy” and apparently you don’t understand that.

      I don’t understand why you’re allowed to post profanity here.

  66. Lyn Barrett says:

    The title of this article, ‘Why the Chick Fil-A Boycott is Really About Jesus”, grabbed my attention. It was not until 3/4 of the way down that Jesus was mentioned at all with this quote: “It’s about Jesus. It’s about the radical sexual ethic He put forth in His teaching – a moral zealousness that hits our current culture’s sexual permissiveness head-on.” Would someone please tell me where in the Gospels Jesus ever, even once, mentions homosexuality, let alone sexual orientation? I fail to see anything in the red-letter words of Jesus that would tell me he would support organizations/policies that discriminate against homosexuals or condemn two same-sex people in loving, committed relationships. On the other hand, Jesus spoke constantly, incessantly about love and, by the same token, he rejected hypocrisy. Please check out the log in your own eye before claiming Christophobia. Not all Christians are of the same mind.

    1. We don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Word of God we’re going to agree with and submit to — and then put those words in red. To approach the Lord like that is to make Him no longer the Lord.

      The Lord Jesus appointed Apostles to speak for Him. Please understand, you either have to submit to Jesus’ words spoken through Paul that homosexuality is “contrary to nature”, an “error” deserving a penalty, that those who do such things will not “inherit the Kingdom of God” (unless they repent and are cleansed by the blood of Christ) or finally, frankly, honestly admit that you’ve not really been a Christian at all.

      You simply cannot be a Christian and endorse any homosexual practice.

      1. Lyn Barrett says:

        I’m sorry John. You haven’t convinced me.

        1. According to the Lord Jesus (speaking through His appointed and anointed representative, the Apostle Paul), homosexuality is about “suppressing the truth) (Romans 1). So it’s natural for an advocate of it not to be open to being convinced by the truth. Homosexuality is inherently hostile to truth.

    2. mel says:

      You do realize that Jesus is in the entire bible, right? He is not just the red letter words. And the red letter words talk about sexual immorality and perversion.

      Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

      obviously sexual immorality isn’t just adultery since He already mentions that. Look up the Greek meaning of porneia. Matthew 19 He speaks at length about marriage. All references are between a man and woman. The way that God intended them. One for the other and for no one else.

      Children are to be born out of these marriages. They are to know both their mother and father. We have TV shows and organizations that help children find their “real” parents. It is something that has always been central to a person’s identity, who are their parents.

      Now liberals, professing Christians or not, want us to believe that the way God set up how a child should be conceived doesn’t matter. That He hasn’t spoken on the subject. It’s obvious.

  67. Courtney says:

    I feel this article unwittingly jumps to the same conclusions as half the nation did when Cathy first made this statement. Just as his comment should not be labeled as “homophobic,” I don’t believe the response should be labeled as “Christophobic.” Certainly Chick-Fil-A should be able to continue to operate in every city in the country. That is their right, and their personal beliefs should have no bearing on their ability to run a successful business. However, your comments about Christians being “discriminated against” just don’t jive with reality, especially when you compare it to other religious, such as Islam. When was the last time a Christian church was banned from being built because it was too close to 9/11? Christians have enjoyed unbelievable prosperity in this country and continue to do so for the most part. I agree that traditional family values are no longer treasured by many in this country, but I don’t believe it is helpful to frame this is an attack or persecution of Christians. We need to watch our language so that we don’t further polarize the different sides. If we want to continue to be a valid and respected voice in our nation we need to start framing our discussions in terms of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution–one of which being a right to practice whatever religion you want and have it not impact your social standing or ability to operate a business. Let’s not resort to throwing “Phobias” just like the other side.

    1. Phil says:


      Cathy said that allowing gays to marry will lead to the destruction of our country (by God). I think that classifies as “homophobic.”

      (Imagine the scenario: Someone says “I don’t think that Blacks and Whites should be allowed to marry each other; that is not what God intended.” Is that racist?)

      1. The attempt to lie moral objections to homosexuality to racism is a confusion of categories. I believe a Gospel Coalition article a few weeks ago (perhaps by DeYoung) dealt with that.

        Homosexuality is an activity which is objectively unnatural. Race is not an activity but a status (or condition). It’s apples and oranges. Further, inter-racial marriage is not unnatural, either objectively (as offspring can result) or scripturally (as there is no objection to it anywhere in scripture.). I’m in an inter-racial marriage.

        1. correction to above: should be “The attempt to tie” . . .

        2. Lyn Barrett says:

          Homosexuality is unnatural for you or for me because we are heterosexual. To a homosexual, heterosexual acts are unnatural. God created some of us heterosexual and some of us homosexual. We are all made in the image of God ~ the imago Dei. As such, we are loved and blessed by God, as we should be by each other as well.

          I disagree with your contrast between race and homosexuality. Decades ago it was common perception that interracial marriage was ‘unnatural’. Bless you that you and many others in our world have moved beyond that stereotype. Perhaps if you got to know some homosexual Christians in loving, committed relationships and understand them as people and more than just the embodiment of ‘sin’, you might begin to change your perception too.

          God bless,

          1. That’s a distortion of what the Bible says. Paul says the sin is “contrary to nature” for those who do it. Period. There is no person who is made by God to do homosexual acts.

            It doesn’t matter what some people thought “decades ago.” Two things matter: (1) God’s revelation through nature and (2) God’s revelation through His Word. Both agree: homosexuality is unnatural and sinful.

            That you assume I’ve never known homosexuals, shows your own biases.

  68. Billy says:

    “Those who are problematic, those who must be shut down and made to feel unwelcome, are not really the people who believe in traditional marriage but conservative Christians who seek to practice the tenets of their faith in the public sphere.” What?- I can think of at least a dozen laws in how you get to “practice your tenets” in the public arena. Which by the way is the same thing as you forcing your beliefs onto people who do not subscribe to them… which is illegal. Had any of these been muslim laws, your conservative cohorts would be up in arms.

    Lets not forget here people that this is more than what this oblivious blogger says about Cathy’s free speech. This is about where Cathy sends millions of his company’s money to in “donations”. They’re some pretty homophobic groups, thus making Cathy one. Homophobia does include fear, which is why many people think it’s okay to treat gays as second class citizens. Due to their lack of perspective and fear of the unknown. Sorry, but you’re a homophobe Mr. Blogger.

    If you wish to align with the biblical version of marriage, then you’re either a misogynistic pig or you haven’t read the Bible. Either way, keep your views to yourself and your fellow believers… no one’s forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, so stop forcing your views down everyone else’s throats. Gay people aren’t going anywhere, no matter how many laws you try to create to stop them from being treated equally.

    1. Hi Billy,
      Can you, on a second reading of your own comments, see how absurd and oppressive they are?
      You say, “If you wish to align with the biblical version of marriage” — that is, the definition of marriage shown in the Bible — “then you’re either a misogynistic pig or you haven’t read the Bible”. So, if you believe in the Bible’s definition of marriage, you haven’t read the Bible? Care to explain that?

      Then, “Either way, keep your views to yourself . . .” Now, Christians are the second class citizens who don’t have a right to speak!

      I think you illustrate what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 1 : homosexuality, like idolatry, is rooted in a quest to “suppress the truth.”

  69. Andrew T says:

    To everyone opposing this article:
    You all keep repeating that Jesus never condemned homosexuality, but was solely a promoter of unconditional love… but He wasn’t. If you were to take a closer look at the scriptures, in its entirety and not just the parts you prfer, you would read that Jesus told his disciples that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment would be more bearable than a household that rejected the messageof the Gospel (Matt. 10:25). He follows it 1 chapter later saying the same, when He talks of unrepentant cities (11:24). So Jesus says that Sodom’s punishment is more bearable, or more easily endured, not that it never happens, nor that mercy and love ever triumph over unrepentd sin. And what was Sodom & Gomorrah ever condemnd for?

    “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom–both young and old–surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (Gen. 19:4-5)

    So Jesus did condemen homosexuaity when you look at the entire context of everything He said. Do not jump to conclusions based on just 1 or 2 passages that are the popular go-to Scriptures that support your view. You cannot pick and choose. God’s Word is God’s Word.

    1. That kind of indirect allusion isn’t necessary. The Lord Jesus appointed Apostles to speak and write for Him with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They explicitly condemned homosexuality (e.g. Romans 1:18ff, 1 Cor. 6, etc.)

      1. Andrew T says:

        Hi John, you know that and I know that, but you cannot tell a non-Christian that. To them, that just becomes circular reasoning (e.g. the Bible is true because it says so). The hole in their claim is their lack of pulling scripture together as complete whole, while taking select passages out of context. I agree with you 100%, but to someone who claims Jesus never condemned homosexuality (explicitly) their question or claim has to be answered or refutd with scripture. Do you not agree?

        1. Well, we agree on goals. I think, however, that most non-Christians can understand the concept of a spokesman, an ambassador, a certified representative, etc. Therefore, I don’t think most of the claims that “Jesus never condemned homosexuality” are good-faith arguments; that is, I don’t believe they are made with sincere intentions of trying to ascertain and follow the teachings of the Lord Jesus.

        2. David N. says:

          I am a person who revers Jesus but cannot call myself a Christian. I find it very significant that Jesus never, through his own person, condemned homosexuality. I connect very closely with Jesus in the Gospels, but much of the rest of the New Testament seems to me to distort His teachings. Obviously this is not the standard Christian attitude, but I think it’s wrong to conclude that therefore I have no intention of trying to follow Jesus’ teachings and example.

          1. He did condemn homosexuality. He appointed the Apostle Paul who speaks for Him. If you reject His appointed and anointed Apostles, you’ve rejected Jesus.

            Further, you assume that you have a superior understanding of the message of the Lord Jesus than the Apostles He appointed and whom the Holy Spirit inspired. You do not.

          2. Andy says:

            @David N:
            Can you cite where Jesus said that any sex outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage was ok? he even said that the divorce laws of moses were a corruption of what was intended by God. Jesus said that the one form of sexual conduct that was acceptable was a man leaving his parents and cleaving to his wife. Nothing else was permitted.

          3. David N. says:

            @John – As I said, “I find it very significant that Jesus never, through his own person, condemned homosexuality.” Disagree with me if you wish, but I find Jesus’ own words (or lack thereof) more weighty than even those of his “appointed speaker.”

            @Andy – Jesus was certainly in favor of monogamous marriage. You could also choose to interpret his silence on advocating interracial marriages as condemnation of them, but I wouldn’t.

          4. Then you’ve simply rejected the Lord Jesus. You need to be honest about that and stop the pretense of “revering Jesus.” He sent and led Paul who wrote for Him. You’ve rejected His Word and, while doing so, deemed yourself a better judge of who speaks for Him than He is.

          5. David N. says:

            @John, I’m sorry you think my reverence for Jesus is a pretense. But if that makes it easier for you to ignore me…

          6. Andy says:

            @David. The history of Israel is full of examples of people coming from outside the nation of Israel, joining it and marrying Israelites. Ruth and Rahab spring to mind. Don’t conflate your recent history in the USA with race relations with the bible.
            You haven’t told me how you get from Jesus’ position on sex being one man and one woman in marriage for life to that of gay marriage being ok. Do tell.

          7. David N. says:

            @Andy – My point was that people have used “the Bible/Jesus says so” as reason for not supporting gay marriage in just the same way that reason was used for not supporting interracial marriages. The response is quite simple: in advocating for strong marriages, I don’t see that as excluding gays any more than it excludes interracial couples.

          8. Andy says:

            it’s easy to break down the idea that interracial marriage bans were ridiculous. marriage consists of one man and one woman. race doesn’t (or shouldn’t) enter into it. Changing it from one man and one woman into how ever many of whichever gender (you know that once you open the door to redefinition it wont stop there) is a massive redefinition.

            so you choose to exclude from consideration any parts of the bible that don’t sit with your worldview. your call. guys who were around at the time of Jesus and who walked with him wrote the new testament under the inspiration of the holy spirit and thought their writings were in agreement with the teachings of Jesus, and so considered them as holy and trustworthy as the old testament documents (as indicated by Peter approving of the wiritngs of Paul as having the property of scripture). but then again, what would they know compared to you?

          9. David N. says:

            @Andy – “guys who were around at the time of Jesus and who walked with him wrote the new testament”? Like Paul, eh? It just makes more sense to me to take the accounts of Jesus’ life by people who actually knew him in the flesh more seriously than Paul’s visions.

    2. Katie says:

      “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom–both young and old–surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (Gen. 19:4-5)

      Ugh. How to you possibly read this and see it as condemning a culture for homosexuality, not for trying to rape two guests?

  70. Pam McFadden says:

    May I suggest that the Christian community come out to support Chick Fil A on Friday’s Kiss a Chick Day and pay for a gay couples’ order? We have to respond with love! Thanks

  71. David N. says:

    I notice that “the discrimination… the double standard” mentioned in the article is based purely on the author’s speculation.

    Also, the author suggests that people are upset over Mr. Cathy’s comments alone, when the real issue has always been the money donated to anti-gay-rights organizations.

    1. I believe the Cathy’s money is donated to “pro-family” groups.

    2. Andy says:

      Yeah. How dare a private citizen give of his own money to an organisation that supports a view he holds. A view that is consistent with the way he runs his business (not opening on sundays). Let’s not forget that his organisation has not practised discrimination in hiring or service.

      1. David N. says:

        And how dare I choose not to eat there if I disagree with those views, eh?

        1. Andy says:

          and that’s your right, but when a government official says that becuase of that expression of your religious beliefs you will not be able to get permits that you are entitled to, that’s restricting religious liberty.

          it isn’t as if there is a lack of people speaking in favour of gay marriage in our society, but when anyone dares to break ranks and speak in favour of the institution that has served our civilisation so well for so long, they are vilified and shouted down.

          How about the gay activists start picketing mosques over their executing gays in muslim dominated countries for their sexuality. christians are an easy target as we don’t fight back.

          1. Phil says:


            You are a target because you (Christians) are powerful in this country. Muslims are not.

          2. David N. says:

            I personally wouldn’t boycott a mosque just as I wouldn’t boycott a church. But it doesn’t matter what someone’s religion is to me — if they act in ways I find morally reprehensible, I will certainly speak out, just as you no-doubt would.

            Also, Christians don’t fight back? Really?

          3. David N. says:

            @Andy – Oh yeah, and while I may agree with the mayor’s feelings on the matter, I have about as much power to enforce his will as he does.

  72. Brian E says:

    This is an excellent article. The best line is “Its about Jesus.” And that truly is the heart of the matter. Will we accept the biblical truth about Him or not? Will we do an intellectually honest and historical review of the greatest person who ever lived? Will we allow Him to become the central focus and priority of our lives whereby we equally submit to His commands and accept His unconditional love? Will He be the Lord of our lives or will we be the lord of our lives? Will we humbly acknowledge Him or will be fight and resist and shake our fist in angry rebellion at Him? I am so thankful that He affirms the Word of God and what it says about God’s design for marriage. I am so thankful that He did this not because He wanted to enslave us but to free us from our evil desires. I am so thankful that He died on the cross for us because we are sinners. I am so thankful that in the end every knee will bow and tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

  73. Ryan says:

    “In the United States, the words of Jesus are coming to pass for those who hold tightly to His vision of sexuality: You will be hated because of Me.”

    I have a question for the article’s author. When using Jesus’ words in your article, was your intention to misquote or was it done out of pure incompetence? I noticed at least one instance where you put words in quotes that were never actually said or typed so I can assume maybe you don’t know how quotes work. In the excerpt above you put what were described as Jesus’ words in italics.

    The problem I see is that I cannot find your quote in any translation of the bible. In fact, putting “You will be hated because of Me” into Google with the quotes around it, you only get hits from other articles using that verse incorrectly.

    If what you wanted to say was “All men will hate you because of me.” – Luke 21:17, or “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” – Mark 13:13, or possibly even “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” – Matthew 10:22, then you may want to make a correction. If your intention was to fix the word of God to fit your story or to try and make a guess at what Jesus meant then you may want to go ahead and not do that. It’s not that I don’t think you speak for Jesus, it’s that I know you don’t speak for Jesus. When quoting scripture, give it care that I am sure you feel it deserves and do your research.

  74. GTV says:

    You’re wrong. This isn’t about Jesus, it’s about politics. Huckabee called for the show of support. He purposely stirred the pot. The leaders of liberal cities are simply defending their own, as most anyone would when they feel threatened. It’s about anything but Jesus.

    For many on the Left, Right Wing Republicans = Christians. Christians have no one to blame but themselves for being wedded to the Republican party for so many years.

  75. Ryan I says:

    ‎”What we are seeing today is a massive cultural shift that permits leaders to label Christians as intolerant and bigoted simply for expressing their views about how society should function.” If I said society should function as a tiered system with Aryans at the top and Jews, Gays, and Blacks at the bottom, would I be labelled as bigoted? Yeah, that’s what I thought…

    1. You’ve made a categorical error. Being homosexual is not a comparable category to being Jewish or African. Those are races, conditions. Being homosexual is engaging in certain behavior. So, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Actually, it’s more like you’re mixing apples and rocks.

      Bigotry is prejudice, literally “pre-judging”, assuming that someone is likely inferior because of the category they belong to.
      Objecting to homosexuality is not bigotry because it is not “pre-judging.” It is post-judging: it is saying that people who engage in this behavior that is clearly contrary to nature is doing something that is clearly contrary to nature.

  76. Ryan I says:

    I apologize if my last comment seemed inflammatory. As a non-christian, I feel compelled to weight in here. I, as a non-christian, have no qualms with your religion or it’s “sexual ethos”. But, I beg you to understand that not everyone believes in the teachings of your church. To deny them the freedom to live in accordance with their own beliefs is akin to anyone else denying you, as christians, the right to live in accordance with your teachings. No one will ever deny you right right to marry a member of the opposite sex and live in monogamy. However, not everyone in this country believes that this is the only (or even right) way to live. Maybe it is for some people and not others. Please let everyone find their own way. Please?

    1. Of course you have qualms with our faith. That’s what makes you “feel compelled” to attack what we believe and tell us to stop expressing our faith.

      1. Ryan I says:

        I am not attacking your faith or your ability to practice it. I am asking kindly that you stop expecting non-christians to comply with your beliefs. You can express whatever you like but this country was formed on the notion of a freedom of religion. Freedom of ANY religion. I’m not asking that you not excersize your freedom of expression but only that you leave the possibility open to others to express themselves.

      2. Lyn Barrett says:

        John, I’ve been watching your comments all over this blog. I think you are the one who is attacking. What are you afraid of? What compels you to keep repeating the same argument even to those who clearly don’t agree? Even if Jesus believed as you do (and I don’t believe the scripture supports that), I don’t think he would bless your approach. Remember he said, “Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.” (Matthew 10:14)

        1. Andy says:

          Lyn, you forgot the second part of that comment by Jesus:

          15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.

          You may not agree with John, or a reasonable reading of the scriptures in showing God’s view on sexual ethics, but repeating the argument in the hope that maybe some light might shine into your thinking is probably not done out of animosity but out of a concern that you’re consigning yourself to hell in rejecting Jesus, his truth, his definitions of sin and how hiw believers are to reject sin as defined by Jesus.

          Can you point to a scripture that supports a homosexual lifestyle? Our opinions don’t matter a bit compared to what the bible says. There are myriad verses that spell out that within marriage of one man and one woman was the only place for sex, and many verses of prohibition against sex outside of that, but i can’t recall anything that speaks positively on gay sex.

          1. Lyn Barrett says:

            Andy, the story of Sodom is about violent rape; both homosexual and heterosexual. Are you as opposed to Lot’s outrageous offering of his daughters as you are by the male-on-male abuse of power? Ezekiel 16:48-49 says the sin of Sodom was really about ignoring the poor and needy: ‘As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were haughty, overfed, rich and lazy, but did not assist the poor and needy.’

    2. Katie says:

      And I beg you not to believe that all Christians believe the same things!! :)

  77. Mr. Need to Know says:

    CHRISTOPHOBES ALERT!! they are taking over this article and distroying the freedom of speech, religion and the press.

    1. David N. says:

      @Mr. Needs to Know – Expressing one’s beliefs constitutes “distroying the freedom of speech, religion and the press”? In that case things went wrong a long time ago…

  78. Kris says:

    I can’t imagine Rahm Emanuel taking on a prominent, well-respected Muslim businessman, no matter what he would say about marriage and sexuality. (Perhaps that’s why Emanuel has no problem partnering with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan – an outspoken critic of gay marriage – in a crime-reducing initiative.)

    So true. Why the double standard?

    1. mel says:

      Because when you are standing in darkness you have no problem teaming up with more darkness.

    2. David N. says:

      Oh, has Dan Cathy promoted a crime-reduction initiative?

    3. Andy says:

      he values his life and doesn’t want to live his life under police protective custody

  79. Bill Trip says:

    I think we are moving toward another armed Civil War. We are already in a soft Civil War. It will only be another 25-50 years before the guns come out.

  80. Phil says:

    The whole premise of Trevin Wax’s article is mistaken.

    Trevin argues there is a double standard because there are two groups in similar circumstances [(1) muslims–and other religious faithful–who are against homosexuality, and (2) christians who are against homosexuality)], but there is only an uproar over Christians. Trevin concludes that this shows people aren’t really concerned about being against homosexuality, but rather against Christians.

    This is wrong.

    The two groups are not in similar circumstances, as he claims. Muslims (and other religious faithful) hold no real power in this country. Christians do. Therefore it makes sense for there to be an uproar against Christians, and not Muslims (or other religious faithful). This is about being against those who have the power to deny gay rights, and not specifically about persecuting Christians for simply being Christian (as he claims).

    When Congressmen/Legislators start banning same sex marriage because of their conservative Muslim or Jewish beliefs (or any other religion), then we can talk about a double standard. When conservative Muslim and conservative Jewish organizations have the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people in support of their conservative views, then we can talk about a double standard. Until then, the uproar is directed at conservative Christians because they are the ones who have hold the power in this country to defeat gay rights. No other religious faithful can.

    (As an example, I believe Trevin Wax’s article has been “liked” about 18,000 times on Facebook. Even though the article is simply wrong, it feeds the narrative that Christians are unjustly “persecuted” in this country.)

  81. I must admit,your article causes me some confusion.Cristophobia is nothing new as Satan and his minions have always sought to destroy God’s plan,from the ancient of days.But,are you referring to systemic discrimination directed at Christians in general,or only at those who hold”conservative”values?As a Christian who’s views are liberal,I often find that I am more under attack from conservatives who claim a franchise on God’s word,than I am from those of different religions.I must say,even as a liberal I hold to the traditional Christian faith and generally agree with your commentary.But,I find that Christophobia is a much larger topic than you’ve outlined here,and can take many different forms.Some additional clarity is in order.

  82. mel says:

    I think the video of the non-gay man harassing the Chick-fil-A employee to prove that he is the nicer, more tolerant one says it all.

    1. David N. says:

      I agree it was reprehensible behavior. I wonder if you think it’s right that he was subsequently fired from his job?

  83. Jelly Jam says:

    I just find it astonishing that “educated” men and women think our present day Bible is the infallible word of God. We know it’s been translated (which is never a clean, crisp thing) from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic many times over. We know there were a number of councils (known or not know) that sat to decide which books belong in the Bible and in what order (and which books they deemed to “not be the word”. We know that the KJV, which many people cite, was only developed because an egotistical king didn’t agree with the Catholic Church. Cmon now…I’m all for faith, but not for stupidity.

    We can have scholarly debates on morality, spirituality, Christianity, and love for God’s creatures, but not when people refuse to use their God-given intellect. And that’s the main problem with “Bible thumpers”/radical conservative Christians. They just spew out toxic sentiments, but then don’t want to have a discussion on their views. They just yell “God is infallible! The Bible is infallible, so my views are infallible!” Yeah, God is infallible, but YOU and anything touched by a man is faaaarrrr from infallible.

  84. Ray H. says:

    I see some commentators are appealing to “tolerance,” e.g., non-Christians are holding a double standard etc., but these appeals are fundamentally logically flawed. The biggest problem with tolerance is that it abstracts the real problems like inequality/injustice/exploitation into problems of “tolerance.” Tolerance means to sit around doing nothing, saying “Well, these Christians have equally valid point of view…” MLK never appealed to “tolerance” because he was actively fighting against inequality, which is really what non-Christians believe is what they’re doing.

    Tangentially, “tolerance” is a tricky word to even invoke, because you instantly run into logic paradoxes and self-referentiality snares like “tolerance of intolerance” and “intolerance of tolerance,” which just makes everything confusing to talk about, and it’s clearly confusing the author of that article.

    My point is: however you want to phrase it, people boycotting Chick Fil-A are following the exact same logic as that of Christians funding organizations supporting “traditional” marriage. Just don’t abstract the problem; don’t accuse boycotters of holding a double standard in “tolerance”—or else it just ends up a lame and confused critique of postmodernism.

  85. Lindsay says:


    Your comments are well stated, but they still seem a bit misguided to me. You say that there is a growing trend of hostility towards Christians. Since when? Since the apostles were hanged and burned at the stake for proclaiming the name of Jesus? Since martyrs were killed in the games of the Coliseum? The world has always been against Christianity, and as Christians, we are to expect persecution. We are certainly not to demand that the law of the land is to be submissive to the law of our God, and when we try to do that and the land reacts against us, we should not act surprised.

    The Chick-Fil-A issue SHOULD NEVER have been about Jesus. Christians should never have made this about their Christ. It should have ALWAYS been about the First Amendment, for under the law of the land, Cathy had a RIGHT to voice his opinion. The fact that Christians have made this about Jesus is another sad day in Christian history.

  86. M.L. says:

    I think it’s rather telling that the author felt compelled to present a rather carefully selected subset of Cathy’s comments, leaving out the part that most found offensive, that being the kooky talk about “shaking our fists at god” and courting “god’s judgement”. It sounded like one of those classic Pat Robertson weirdo moments.

    Another thing about this issue that I find curious is the repeated assertions that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It doesn’t. One man one woman marriaage entered the Judeo-Christian world by way of pagan Rome. The ancient Hebrews, prior to Roman colonization, were polygamous. Many Old Testament figures had multiple wives.

    He does have a valid point about Rahm Emmanuel and Farrakhan, but he doesn’t go far enough. Farrkhan and his NOI aren’t merely anti-gay marriage, they are a virulently racist, anti-semitic hate group; far more unambiguously so than the Family Research Council. For a Jew like Emmanuel to partner with the notoriously anti-semitic Farrakhan is beneath contempt.

  87. BrianK says:

    Trevon, I agree with your article title “It’s really about Jesus”.

    Sometimes I wondered why in the world God would allow some of the Leviticus laws in Judaism. I see now that all of Leviticus points to Jesus. The homosexual reference in Leviticus, I contend, was put there by God so that the condemnation of homosexuals would be forever abolished on the cross. The 613 laws of Judaism were ended by being nailed to the cross. This is a part of the gospel that has been lost in Western Christianity, I contend. If anything, Christians ought to be proclaiming the joy and freedom God gave to homosexuals, helping them to overcome guilt and condemnation!

    In fact, I contend that if Christians would approach the LGBT community with love and honesty, I believe many of them would realize they do not really believe in the gospel Jesus proclaimed. Many, I contend, would discover that they really believe in obeying the law rather than in the grace of God. Many others would find that they have adhered to a form of Judaism, and not Christ-likeness. I further believe the LGBT Bible teachers have the greatest opportunity to know and preach and live the gospel of Jesus to Christendom.

  88. Joseph Antonio Apple says:

    If the dude was muslim, people would leave him alone because they would be terrified that muslims would come up and start blowing up something somewhere. Let’s just be honest here. Whenever we back down from making fun of islam, it’s not because we respect that religion, it’s because we’re terrified that they will bomb us.

  89. This is important! says:

    When you get right down to the real heart of the issue, it’s that Chick-Fil-A is a VICTIM of internet bullying! You wouldn’t BELIEVE the haters on my facebook and Twitter bashing Chick-Fil-A all day and all night. In the Bible, there are SEVERAL mentions of issues related to bullying and I am going to do my researcha nd REFUTE this internet bullying against Chick-Fil-A and its founder. It’s just unChristian is what it is! I just remember “make your haters your motivators” and try to stay prayerful through this disaster! It’s so important to stand upf or oyur what you believe in as Christians and I intend to do just that!

  90. Cathie Neufeldt says:

    Christians are not perfect, just forgiven!

  91. Ked says:

    I’m confused by your concluding logical jump. In what possible way does the CFA Appreciation day communicate that “Jesus is Better”??

  92. jake w says:

    Your evidence is based on a hypothetical situation. You cited the discrimination of Kathy based on the “what if” of Kathy being Muslim. There is no double standard unless you have a real life example, which you didn’t provide. Saying that the treatment Kathy received was because he is a christian and he would not have received the same treatment if he a was Muslim is a fallacy because you provide no evidence except a hypothetical. Your argument is invalid for this reason. I think your argument topic is worth bringing to light but the argument you use cannot be considered.

    1. M.L. says:

      There absolutely IS a demonstrable double standard and several examples are available; indeed one was mentioned in the original post/article above: Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam is unequivocally opposed to gay marriage (as well as interracial marriage and in fact is virulently and openly racist and antisemitic) yet Farrkhan is generally either ignored or pandered to by the left (the NY Times calls him a “luminary).

      The left basically has a calclus of victimization where who they side with or what they decide to criticize is based not on any consistent principal but the degree of percieved “victim cred” the group in question has. If a white Christian criticizes homosexuality, it’s a no brainer – charge homophobia. When Farrakhan or Al Sharpton say something anti-gay (MSNBC host has numerous times), crickets.

      I also disagree with the assumption that he fear of offending Muslims is based on fear of terrorism. It’s really based on fear of being called a racist (which is absurd because Islam isn’t a face and in fact Middle Easterners and North Africans are actually considered caucasian, but I digress).

      Mind you, I’m not even a Cathy supporter. I think the obsession with homosexuality is really weird as are Cathy’s remark about the judgement of God. Look, gays are 1-2 perecent of the population and only a fraction of them want to get ‘married’. This ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t involve forcing Churches to marry gays as some seem to think. If this is a potentially ‘fatal threat’ to marriage as an institution than the institution is in serious trouble dor ither reasons. The whole hubbub is just silly.

  93. G Smith says:

    I don’t get it! when the CEO of Chik-Fil-A expresses his personal opinion regarding marriage, the U.S. GLBT community goes ballistic threatening boycotts and demonstrations, harassing employees & patrons, damaging property (w/ graffiti), & proponents wish people would get cancer from eating there). When a COUNTRY (Saudia Arabia) bans women & girls from the olympics or from athletics & physical fitness in general claiming (among other things) that it promotes “lesbianism” no one raises a fuss against that country or against (gasp) ISLAM!

  94. Chris says:

    Gays are searching for acceptance. They know very little about the bible or even what it’s about. They are using it as a gate way(door) for as to why they need to marry the same sex. The bible can’t be clearer that it’s wrong. So then the gays use the same verse the evolutionist use by saying eating shellfish is a sin. It was in the old testament. But being gay was wrong in the od and new testament.

  95. DanlBoone says:

    @Dan – It would be easy to say that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share those kinds of barbaric rules (because those rules all come from largely the same source).

    it would also be a patently absurd thing to say..

    but surely, you won’t be dissuaded

  96. DanlBoone says:

    I’m outta here tho–

    I’m not much for posting to a thread that requires my posts to be moderated–

    be well, He is risen!

  97. Bruce Reeves says:

    It always amazes me that when people start talking about homosexuality others start throwing Jesus into the mix. Jesus said NOTHING – ZERO – NADA about homosexuality.

    You do NOT get to redefine what I’m boycotting and why. I am boycotting Chick-Fil-A because of their stance on homosexuality and specifically same-sex marriage.

    Fifty years ago you saw Christians all a fluster about integration, inter-racial marriage, and the like …. You would have truly thought those people were evil. The world did not come to an end then, nor is it likely to today.

    My husband and I love each other as much (or more) than most heterosexual people in marriages to.

    Get a life. The chick-fil-a boycott is about their stance on homosexuals and specifically same sex marriage. To attempt to say it is not, it pure poppy cock.

  98. Charity Campbell says:

    I agree with the people commenting saying you’re taking this too far, and I think you’re missing the point of the boycotting – it’s not simply that the owner is against gay marriage but rather that he’s bragging about being against it. Also sure, there are many people now in the US practicing Islam, but it’s not getting the heat as badly because it’s not being promoted in our government nor are there as as many of them trying to “witness” to non-believers.

Leave a Reply to M.L. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Trevin Wax photo

Trevin Wax

​Trevin Wax is Bible and Reference Publisher at LifeWay Christian Resources and managing editor of The Gospel Project. You can follow him on Twitter or receive blog posts via email. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books