On July 20th you sent a letter to the President of Chick-fil-A. In it you misrepresented Mr. Cathy’s published statements, as has been documented by numerous news outlets. Mr. Cathy had expressed, in respectful and measured words, his Christian conviction, based upon the Christian Scriptures, that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, so-called “traditional” marriage. And it is a fact that Chick-fil-A donates some corporate profits to organizations that defend and promote the Christian view of marriage, just as many major corporations donate to organizations that seek to redefine marriage in opposition to Christian beliefs.
You indicated to Mr. Cathy that his company is not welcome in Boston. You accused him of making “prejudiced statements” and even seemed to indicate that the entire company engages in “discrimination” and hence is not welcome in Boston. These are, of course, very serious charges.
So I would like to ask you, Mr. Menino, how you can substantiate these allegations in a logical, truthful fashion?
The fact is you do not like Mr. Cathy’s beliefs. You are free to dislike them, but do you realize that his views are held by a very large number of Americans and that, up until very recent decades, represented the vast majority of the American population? That every single signer of the Declaration of Independence would have blushed at the idea of redefining marriage as the union of two men or two women? That every President of the United States up until the current President likewise viewed marriage, not as you, but as Mr. Cathy, that is, to be the union of one man and one woman? And I wonder, sir, if you considered how many believing Christians there are in your city who, likewise, follow the teachings of the faith on this matter? Are they now unwelcome to do business in Boston as well, I wonder?
My main question to you, sir, is, would Jesus be welcome in Boston under your leadership? What if He were to start teaching in the city square? You see, He upheld the law of God found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and identified those sacred writings as the very speech of God. No one in the Jewish community before Him, or for many, many centuries after Him, ever spoke against the positive teaching of the Scriptures found in Genesis 2:24 regarding what marriage was designed, by the Creator, to be, that is, the union of one man and one woman. There were no pro-homosexual advocacy groups in ancient Israel, and Jesus never for a moment gave the slightest indication of support for the overthrow of the institution of marriage as God had ordained it. In fact, He upbraided the men of His day for having relaxed the stringent guidelines God Himself had provided for this, the first institution God established amongst men, the covenant of marriage. Are you familiar, sir, with what Jesus said on the topic? Listen to His words:
And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Jesus the Messiah, the founder of the Christian faith, believed that God defines gender, and gender roles, and that by His creative right. He described the family as God designed it to be, a father and a mother, producing life. The process then continues on, those children produced by that marriage themselves entering into that sacred union. He even said it is God who joins together man and wife. It is a divine act. That was Jesus’ teaching.
So Mr. Menino, I have a simple question for you. Are you opposed to the teachings of Jesus? Would you call Him prejudiced? Was He engaging in “discrimination”? Would He be unwelcome in Boston today? It surely seems you are angry at His disciples, and do not wish them to have the freedom to express His teachings, let alone do business in your city. And finally, do you not see that in fact it is your attitude that is prejudicial, and that you, in reality, are engaging in discrimination, based upon your ethical and moral viewpoints?