Tom Gilson

What Is the Chick-Fil-A Controversy Really About?

Dan Cathy never mentioned same-sex marriage.

Why then have some politicians and the media been so eager to maul him? I have my theories. I’ll let you go first.

 

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

45 thoughts on “What Is the Chick-Fil-A Controversy Really About?

  1. To me this feels like the Bolshevik and the French Revolutions where the pattern of denounce and kill held sway. Facts and logic are the first victims when this mob mentality rules.

  2. Because anti-Christians have figured out the key to silencing critics.

    You don’t need an argument – in fact, arguments are terrifying. They bog people down and make people think.

    You just need to scream, very loudly. And if someone tries to reason with you, or – worse – disagrees, the answer is to scream louder, and with as many voices as you can muster. You just scream, and scream, and scream, and eventually everyone will be quiet and do what they’re told.

  3. I think you’re right, to a great extent.

    To scream back is wrong. To speak back is right. To act in a Christlike manner is right. But there has to be a more strategic way to tie all that together.

  4. Maybe there’s a path forward here. Can proponents of “traditional marriage” devote their efforts towards methods of supporting traditional marriage without seeking to impose laws or constitutional language that prevents or obstructs same-sex marriage?

    Can the conservative Christians come up with ideas of how this might work? Or does supporting traditional marriage necessarily imply resisting same-sex marriage through legal and political means?

  5. Of course we can, and we are. It’s happening all the time, in marriage conferences, in sermons, in Sunday School classes, in small groups, in the counseling room, in mutual encouragement, and on and on.

    That’s not very public, because it’s not the kind of thing that becomes public. But you can hardly swing a church bulletin in an evangelical church without fanning some marriage support effort.

    Meanwhile there’s a public aspect to our efforts to defend marriage, and this is what gets all the attention.

  6. I should add that there’s a lot going on in the media as well. That’s what FamilyLife and Focus on the Family (among other ministries) have spent the great majority of their work on for decades. But they only get picked up in other media when they say something about abortion, same-sex “marriage,” etc. There’s no imbalance in their presentation except what gets artificially created by the media.

  7. Given, then, that proponents of traditional marriage can support traditional marriage through methods that don’t involve coercive political/legal inhibitions on same-sex marriage, the conflict here seems unnecessary. Maybe we’re all for traditional marriage (assuming we can filter these traditions, some of which, I think we will agree, are repugnant).

  8. The ones who are doing the coercing, my friend, are the ones who are trying to force marriage law to change in this country. Don’t get that mixed up.

    I said it on another thread just yesterday: to consider us the aggressors in this conflict is to consider the RAF the aggressors when they were shooting at the Luftwaffe over London.

  9. The main point, however, stands. Christians can support traditional marriage without involving themselves in a nasty legal/political controversy. Maybe Dan Cathy can be a figurehead for the way forward–assuming, of course, that it doesn’t turn out that he’s also been supporting legal obstructions to same-sex marriage.

  10. The main point that “stands” is your personal opinion. Yes, Christians can and do support man-woman marriage that way. We could do it without dirtying ourselves in a really nasty battle someone else started. But that would be inadequate and wrong, because there would be irreparable damage to culture from re-defining marriage.

    My opinion in return for yours. I could support it but it’s Saturday today.

  11. So Dan Cathy’s way of supporting traditional marriage is inadequate and wrong? Or is Dan Cathy also promoting resistance to same-sex marriage?

  12. I don’t know what Dan Cathy is doing in his private life. I only know what Chick-Fil-A has made as its public statement. And it’s not my job to decide whether either of them is inadequate or wrong.

  13. But you did, I understand, claim that it would be inadequate and wrong to support traditional marriage only in ways that don’t involve legal and political resistance to same-sex marriage. Is that right?

  14. In general, yes, but that doesn’t mean every person plays the same role or has the same responsibilities. The body of Christ is an organic whole (1 Cor. 12 – 14), so we work together while doing different things.

  15. Your idea, then, is that so long as someone else in the body of Christ is offering the political/legal resistance to same-sex marriage, then it is not wrong and inadequate for others to support traditional marriage only in ways that don’t involve such political/legal resistance. It would, however, be wrong and inadequate for the body of Christ to support traditional marriage only in ways that didn’t involve political/legal resistance to same-sex marriage. In that respect, you believe that political and legal resistance to same-sex marriage is essential to the support of traditional marriage.

  16. Your language of “someone else” signals a weak understanding of the organic unity of the body of Christ. The point is that the body needs to do what the body needs to do. The Bible portrays this very organismically, comparing the members of the body of Christ to the parts of a human body. The hand does not say to the foot, “as long as you’re doing the walking then I don’t need to.” They’re united in one purpose even though having different roles.

  17. I think the immediate reason is that these cities hae been run extremely poorly and corruptly, and this easily diverts attention away from the massive deficits, near bankruptcy statuses, extraordinarily high murder counts, etc.

    Rahm’s statement that Cathy’s views don’t represent Chicago’s “values” (which apparently include murder and thuggery) seems pathological, in all seriousness. There is clearly a mental defect there caused by spending far to much time doing evil.

  18. Tom, are you suggesting that when one person in the body of Christ is supporting traditional marriage apolitically, that person is at the same time united in the purpose of politically opposing ssm?

  19. I suppose I’m trying to better understand several things, but, centrally, these two issues: why ssm advocates might oppose a Christian’s support of “traditional marriage”; what a Christian’s support of “traditional marriage” has to do with legal/political opposition to ssm.

  20. Thank you.

    I think you’re on the wrong track with this approach to the first question. The answer is not in the church but in the ssm advocate. There is something about marriage itself they have a problem with, in my opinion.

    Support of man-woman marriage is support of man-woman marriage, whether it’s expressed through means that shore up marriages or means that shore up the definition of marriage.

  21. I have an article about the first part of that cooking up in my head, by the way. It’s not going to be all accusation: there’s something tragic and very sad going on in the attacks on marriage.

  22. Well, feel free to try out any of your ideas on me, even if they’re still cooking.

  23. Tom,

    I think you’re right, to a great extent.

    To scream back is wrong. To speak back is right.

    Why? Why is screaming back wrong? How is it unChristlike to be passionate and loud and insistent and, frankly, somewhat intimidating?

    I ask this seriously. Why is it assumed that the proper reaction of Christians – unless I am misunderstanding you – is to always be docile in the face of rage, even when the rage comes from all quarters? Even Christ lost His temper at times.

    The strategy is found in how it’s orchestrated.

    The strategy of the SSM proponents? It’s pretty simple: they hound everyone, over the most minor slights. Christ is regularly mocked on prime-time shows and cartoons, and many Christians feel like if they don’t ignore it (or even laugh along) that they’re being uptight and anal. But if they complain, and struggle to do so in a calm, civil manner, they come across as nitpickers, trying to annoy everyone.

    I agree that this isn’t simple screaming. There’s orchestration, there’s strategy. And I more and more believe that one of those strategies is a two-fisted response: insisting that Christians always keep calm and cool, to have ‘dialogue’ with anyone about anything, even up to and including Peter Singer style infanticide – which, incidentally, mostly serves to lend credence and respect to people offering these views.

    Meanwhile, if the anti-Christian view takes hold in the public consciousness, or the academy, what’s the response? Shut down debate.

  24. Crude, maybe you and I have a different conception of screaming. I think of it as an expression of weakness, a replacement for genuine strength, a loss of control over the situation that one tries to make up for by turning up the literal volume. I don’t see a sign of anyone screaming on God’s behalf throughout the entire Bible. They knew they had a God who would wield the power. Our God is the same God.

  25. I can think of plenty of times people shouted on God’s behalf, on the other hand.

    The difference between shouting and screaming, in my mind, is that shouting is as loud as it needs to be so that the right people can hear it. A dad shouts from the back porch so his daughter can hear that it’s time to come home for dinner—unless she’s standing there with him. Then he just tells her.

    The strength of a message is in the message and in the character of the one delivering it, not in its decibels. A message of warning such as we are talking about needs to be loud enough to be heard, clear enough to be understood, insistent enough to show its urgency, authoritative enough to carry weight, and caring enough to reflect the love of God.

  26. Tom,

    I think of it as an expression of weakness, a replacement for genuine strength, a loss of control over the situation that one tries to make up for by turning up the literal volume. I don’t see a sign of anyone screaming on God’s behalf throughout the entire Bible.

    I think of screaming as a very vocal and public expression of anger aimed at a group or individual. I think of it as making it clear that you’re angry, upset, even offended, and that you will raise a ruckus about something if things don’t go the way you intend.

    Hopefully I’ve made myself a little more clear – I didn’t before, because really, ‘screaming’ in this context can mean a lot of things. Swarms of twitter comments, protests, etc.

    But now that I have, I ask again. Are you sure Christians can’t engage in this? Because more and more, I can’t help but think the problem is that Christians are trying to remain calm, cool and perfectly civil in the face of this sort of thing, rather than responding in kind.

  27. @Crude #2,

    You don’t need an argument – in fact, arguments are terrifying. They bog people down and make people think.

    This whole line of thinking is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias. If you actually care to notice, there’s that sort of bad argumentation happening everywhere, on every side.

    You have to look for the more sophisticated, nuanced, and reasonable-ish argumenents. For every Tom Gilson, there’s 10 Ray Comforts (and 10 Holo’s, masters of ad hominem and hyperbole).

  28. This whole line of thinking is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias.

    No, d, not at all. It’s an exercise in observation.

    See the entire fallout from the Chik-fil-a controversy. The response is manifestly, overwhelmingly NOT one of “this is why Chik-fil-a is wrong” argumentation. It’s screaming “BIGOTS!!!!!”, immediately banning them from cities, trying to kick them off campuses, calling for boycotts, and more.

    For every Tom Gilson, there’s 10 Ray Comforts (and 10 Holo’s, masters of ad hominem and hyperbole).

    Holo is extremely fiery, and I think often his rhetoric crosses the line. But he’s a very sharp thinker, and always mixes in actual argument with his rhetoric. Unlike, say, the vast majority of Cult of Gnu leadership.

    I did not say that sophisticated, nuanced, “reasonable-ish arguments” do not exist. I pointed out that they are not driving the success of this movement, manifestly. Screaming is. Intimidation is. Bullying is. The very idea that someone could have a principled, reasonable disagreement with a conclusion of “Gay marriage is a RIGHT and opposing it is bigotry and HATE” is ruled out in practice. This is the overwhelming reply of the anti-traditionalist-marriage contingent.

    And it’s going to stay that way, because they are terrified of arguments. The very idea that they need to defend their position is an idea that many ATM advocates resist. The success of this movement has been built on fear, emotion, manipulation and bullying. That much is demonstrated by this entire Chik-fil-a controversy, and the moves of its defenders.

  29. Crude,

    The gay marriage position has already been defended so thoroughly by argument, there’s not much left to argue. Nonetheless there are still articulate, intelligent (and unimaginably patient) thinkers out there who continue to offer thoughtful arguments and debate. But for those who feel convinced one way or the other, have a right to act, and to fight for their beliefs. It does not mean they arent rational, simply because you feel you have some slam dunk arguments in your favor.

    Maybe you don’t like being called a bigot – fair enough (for the record, gays don’t like being called abominations). Women going into abortion clinics don’t like being called murderers either.

    But basically you are just pointing out characteristics of movements in general, and painting them in a sinister light perhaps because they are from a movement you oppose.

    And I don’t see what’s so wrong with boycotting, or uses of other social pressures to influence policy, business, etc. That’s what chik-fil-a does, its what everybody does. Christians love a good boycott. They also love a good protest.

  30. @d:

    The gay marriage position has already been defended so thoroughly by argument, there’s not much left to argue.

    I was already missing your unargued arguments. The implicit ironies are delightful and to my own sense of humor, actually funny, funny as in stupid funny.

    There is a potential ambiguity in the quoted sentence that I missed on my first reading: either you are saying that all the pro-SSM arguments that one could reasonably ask were already provided, with the implicit claim that further arguing is a waste of time, or you are saying that the the arguments already provided amount to a robust and unrefuted defense of SSM.

    The most plausible, and my first, reading is the second one. Either way, you just proved Crude’s point since what you are really doing is not providing an argument, but finding yourself an excuse for totalitarian tactics and evading argumentation.

    And I don’t see what’s so wrong with boycotting, or uses of other social pressures to influence policy, business, etc. That’s what chik-fil-a does, its what everybody does.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? There is indeed nothing wrong in *private* citizens using forms of pressure such as boycotting, to influence policy, etc. But this is not what the Chik-Fil-A case is about.

  31. Today a non-Christian friend of mine asked me, “Hey what’s all this about Chick-fil-A… is it a Christian thing?”

    As I fumbled to explain the situation to him as objectively as I could, I found myself wondering internally: how do Dan Cathy’s public comments and/or the August 1st event further the Gospel? What picture of Christianity is being painted by this?

    I’d be interested to hear how others might have answered my friend with my wonderings in mind.

  32. The gay marriage position has already been defended so thoroughly by argument, there’s not much left to argue.

    Imaginary monologues against strawmen are not what I was talking about, d. With those out of the picture, nope, it hasn’t been defended by argument very much at all. 😉

    Nor has that been the method of choice for changing minds on the issue. You just have to look at the recent history to see as much.

    Nonetheless there are still articulate, intelligent (and unimaginably patient) thinkers out there who continue to offer thoughtful arguments and debate.

    Maybe, somewhere. It just so happens their efforts have been largely irrelevant compared to the screaming, the strawmen, the demonization, and otherwise.

    But basically you are just pointing out characteristics of movements in general, and painting them in a sinister light perhaps because they are from a movement you oppose.

    Not really. I’m pointing out the trend of this particular wave o’ change, what the tactics are, how it’s conducted, what has been effective and what hasn’t. In your head, maybe you’d like to imagine that the emphasis has been on rational debate, and yay, your opponents just kept losing, and people kept being persuaded by rational argument. In reality, rational debate has been avoided as if it were the plague.

    As for the rest of your comments, re: boycotting – surprise! More strawmen, as G. Rod has pointed out.

  33. BACH,

    As I fumbled to explain the situation to him as objectively as I could, I found myself wondering internally: how do Dan Cathy’s public comments and/or the August 1st event further the Gospel? What picture of Christianity is being painted by this?

    Well, let’s start with this: what did you tell your friend, fumbling and all?

    And when you talk about the ‘picture of Christianity being painted’, who is painting it? Ask the right gay marriage proponents and you’ll hear that opposing gay marriage is anti-gay hatred and bigotry in and of itself, period. That’s painting a picture, and really, those pictures are going to be painted whether you like it or not.

    The point is I think imagining how one’s comments and acts will be construed is important, but only to a point. If, in some quarters, a rotten picture is being painted by someone who’s got an axe to grind, all you can do is accept and try to fight that. That’s not a reason to keep silent – or at least if it is, it is so in such a way that you should never, ever take a position that isn’t the immediately majority preference at any given time.

  34. I think the picture of Christianity painted in the minds of non-Christians is painted primarily by those who claim the name of Jesus with the label “Christian”. Of course others may try to shade the picture one way or the other. But at the end of the day, it is those who claim to be Christ’s Body who are responsible for how that Body appears to the world.

    I explained to my friend the various things Dan Cathy had said and the ways in which that had been received & responded to by others. For the sake of objectivity, I let him read the statements verbatim from articles that shared Cathy’s comments as well as those of various politicians & LGBT groups who had exploded in protest.

    You may find it interesting to hear that my friend responded by saying: “Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, but [Dan Cathy] seems like he’s being a jerk with those comments about first wives & inviting judgment.”

    Both my friend & I agreed that it’s entirely inappropriate for politicians to suggest in any way that their governments would discriminate against a business for its owner’s political views. As long as the business agrees to abide by the laws of the locality/state/nation, politicians ought to be the first to speak in defense of entrepreneurial free speech.

    But the uncomfortably lingering question for Christians—it seems to me—is this: If we speak what we believe is true, yet fail to do so with love… what do we have left?

    My friend walked away from the conversation with this line: “No offense or anything, but that’s why I don’t go to church.”

  35. I was already missing your unargued arguments. The implicit ironies are delightful and to my own sense of humor, actually funny, funny as in stupid funny.

    There is a potential ambiguity in the quoted sentence that I missed on my first reading: either you are saying that all the pro-SSM arguments that one could reasonably ask were already provided, with the implicit claim that further arguing is a waste of time, or you are saying that the the arguments already provided amount to a robust and unrefuted defense of SSM.

    The most plausible, and my first, reading is the second one. Either way, you just proved Crude’s point since what you are really doing is not providing an argument, but finding yourself an excuse for totalitarian tactics and evading argumentation.

    I’m simply saying there’s not much new ground to tread. For those who have assessed the many arguments and subsequently taken a position (on either side), it is their prerogative to take action – through boycotts, debate, public stands, and other forms of social action (all incredibly democratic things, yet you seem to strangely label them as totalitarian – but seemingly only when they oppose YOU). The fact that they are taking action only makes them participants in the democratic process, and no more or less are they bullies than Cathy himself, or you, or me.

    And the last paragraph is just absolutely silly. I didn’t provide an argument for SSM (or gay issues in general) here, because that’s not what I was doing in this thread.

    As for politicians taking stands – I’m about as cynical as it gets when it comes to politics. Without knowing much about either politician in question, I’d assume their actions are motivated by mere populism. As for the Chicago mayor’s threats, I found that to be very undemocratic and not something at all appropriate (so much for your totalitarian accusations). As for the mayor of Boston, all I can say is I support the content of the message, but not necessarily him – knowing nothing else of him.

    Let’s turn this around. A right wing mayor in a public but ultimately legally toothless manner, targets a business that is considering a move to your city. This business makes public statements supporting abortion and donates considerable sums of money to planned parenthood. The mayor denounces the businesses ongoing support for the right to electively terminate pregnancies, and suggests this businss go elsewhere. How do you respond to the mayors actions?

  36. It’s a sad day when even private people and businesses are no longer allowed to hold beliefs that may differ from a vocal pack without fear of harassment, particularly when those beliefs don’t even have anything to do with the actual business. The traditional marriage proponent witch hunt is in full swing! Grab your pitch forks and torches and contact your local ACLU rep for orders.
    Seriously though, I hope Chik-Fil-A continues to set an example by standing up to thuggery.

  37. BACH,

    But the uncomfortably lingering question for Christians—it seems to me—is this: If we speak what we believe is true, yet fail to do so with love… what do we have left?

    It’s not a very uncomfortable question, man. I think what you’re uncomfortable with is the answers: namely that “speaking with love” sometimes means saying something that will – no matter how much love you pack in, no matter how much you sugar coat it – is going to offend someone at the end of the day. Not to mention that “speaking with love” has to be defined. If that means never offending someone, never speaking against something they hold dear, never opposing something they value, then no – sometimes, speaking without love is important.

    To use an example, Christ didn’t “speak with love” to the moneychangers, unless you can do that with a whip.

    You may find it interesting to hear that my friend responded by saying: “Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, but [Dan Cathy] seems like he’s being a jerk with those comments about first wives & inviting judgment.”

    Did he really say this? Because honest to God, this sounds so… wooden. The entire conversation does. Maybe that’s because you’re leaving out quotes from yourself during this – so I ask again, what did you say to your friend during all this? So far you’re illustrating yourself as a kind of ghostly narrator, only telling us your friends reactions.

    But what did you say? Or didn’t you say anything at all?

    My friend walked away from the conversation with this line: “No offense or anything, but that’s why I don’t go to church.”

    And you said..?

    I mean, I can think of so many reasons why that comment is ridiculous. I can think of so many reasons to recognize why in that case, the problem isn’t on the Church’s side, but your friend’s.

    But again I ask you: what did you say during all this? Let’s hear quotes from you, let’s hear your responses. You said you fumbled during your explanation: okay. How did you fumble? What did you say? Was this a case where you thought Cathy’s statements were wrong from the start? Did you think they were right, but being asked you suddenly just – boom – had no reason why they were right?

    By the way: if someone would have said to your friend, citing the city officials originally pledging to bar Chik-fil-a form their areas, or the repeated calling of anyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot or hatemonger, “No offense, but this is why I don’t support GLAAD and other groups like them.”, do you think your friend would have accepted the reasoning? Would you have?

  38. This business makes public statements supporting abortion and donates considerable sums of money to planned parenthood. The mayor denounces the businesses ongoing support for the right to electively terminate pregnancies, and suggests this businss go elsewhere. How do you respond to the mayors actions?

    Uh, you may want to stop the whitewashing long enough to make the case comparable: something along the lines of the mayor saying, “I don’t like the CFO’s personal politics. We’re going to block their zoning requests or any other quests they have of the government until they buckle.” It wasn’t a mere case of, “I don’t like that business, I wish they wouldn’t be here.” Explicit threats were made. They were walked back after a backlash – and they leave lingering questions in mind.

    And I suppose if a mayor or alderman said, “I’m going to keep that business out of this town because I don’t like the opinions of the guy who runs it”, my response would be, “Stop acting like those GLAAD bigots.”

  39. Crude,

    Two mayors made a public statements. The mayor of Boston, and the mayor of Chicago.

    Chicago issued the threats. Boston just issued a strongly worded letter, essentially.

    I really haven’t run across anybody on my side of the aisle, who thought what the Chicago mayor did was OK. I already said above that I certainly don’t. I’m sure there are a shortsighted few who got on board with what he did, or are making excuses to the effect that threats are toothless anyways – but nobody seems to be endorsing the guy. From what I’ve seen, there’s pretty much unanimous agreement on the fact that he is out of bounds with those threats. (again, so much for all the totalitarian ad hominems from G. Rodrigues)

    What the mayor of Boston did was exactly comparable to my scenario. And I’ve seen lots of support for what he did.

    Since we all agree what Chicago did was wrong, I’m asking you about the scenario we don’t seem to agree on.

  40. @d:

    For those who have assessed the many arguments and subsequently taken a position (on either side), it is their prerogative to take action – through boycotts, debate, public stands, and other forms of social action (all incredibly democratic things, yet you seem to strangely label them as totalitarian – but seemingly only when they oppose YOU).

    If all you are saying is that citizens can take lawful action within a democratic society to change public policy, where did I disagree with that? And where exactly does this opposition between argumentation and action comes from? Making public arguments *ìs* a form of public action. Or are you *seriously* advancing that the time for argument is past and now is time for action? But this is patently silly, not just the very suggestion itself, but even more when under action you name things such as “debate” which presupposes, you know, *argumentation*…

    Now as far as the totalitarian label, you are again straw-manning, for it should be obvious from the last paragraph of #33 that when using it I was not referring to the perfectly legitimate things you mention. I was referring to the abuse of the State’s power to shut-down dissent as is the Chik-Fil-A case. Now, you may call it an ad hominem as you do above in your post to Crude, but given your straw-manning and the fact that only after I used the word “totalitarian” you bothered to say you disagreed with the Chicago mayor’s actions and call them “undemocratic”, the label was not *entirely* unwarranted when applied to you.

    How do you respond to the mayors actions?

    Is this a trick question? What are you trying to gauge by it? My democratic consistency? Let us assume for the sake of argument that say, I would remain silent in such a scenario (*), what exactly would you conclude by that other than, possibly, my hypocrisy? Would my hypothetical hypocrisy change the undemocratic nature of the Chicago mayor’s actions?

    (*) the most probable course of action for reasons that have nothing to do with anything that divides us: I am not an American, matters of public policy in general matter very little to me and where I live both the abortion and the SSM battles were already lost. And then again, to quote Shakespeare “And worse I may be yet: the worst is not so long as we can say ‘This is the worst.'”

  41. d,

    Chicago issued the threats. Boston just issued a strongly worded letter, essentially.

    Nope.

    “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.

    The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”

    The Herald first reported last week that Menino warned “it will be very difficult” for Chick-fil-A to obtain licenses for a restaurant in Boston.

    The Atlanta-based chicken chain has been eyeing a space near the Freedom Trail and across the street from City Hall, among other locations, for its first eatery in Boston.

    “I sent (the landlord) a letter, but that’s all. There’s no pressure by me to allow this place to be rented,” he said.

    So, explicit and veiled threats in Chicago and Boston both.

    And yes, d, of course “DailyKOS” and company are backing away. You know why? Because of the public reaction. So great, instead of explicitly blocking Chik-fil-A, they’ll probably do exactly what Moreno in Chicago said they’d do – look for other excuses to cause problems.

    As I already said – if a mayor decided to threaten a business because of, say… their owner’s opposition to Obama, I’d say what I already said: stop acting like those GLAAD thugs.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this:
Clicky