Gunman who fired on Family Research Council carried 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches and ammo in backpack

By Christine Roberts / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, August 16, 2012


Floyd Lee Corkins, the Virginia man who allegedly shot a security guard at the downtown D.C. headquarters of the anti-gay-rights Family Research Council, was carrying extra ammo and some 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him at the time of the bizarre incident.



"Today's attack is the clearest sign we've seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as 'hateful' must end," Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement, according to WJLA-TV


Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gunman-fired-family-research-council-carried-15-chick-fil-a-sandwiches-ammo-backpack-article-1.1137935?localLinksEnabled=false

I thought liberals were supposed to be nonviolent.

violent people find reasons,,,

its sad that life is so expendable to so many,,,

(This article is a little over a year old...)

May 31, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Stopping the Hate
The shaky case against Chick-fil-A’s founder.
By Matthew Shaffer


There is exactly one Chick-fil-A in New York City. Which is striking, because New York City is big and lucrative, and Chick-fil-A is a big and lucrative brand. And, as I discover during lunch at its sole location on the New York University campus, it’s decently tasty, too. The menu is just what one would expect from the name: Chicken in various states of fry served on buns, with fried potatoes in various different cuts on the side, and pop and milkshakes for drinks. It’s cheap, quick, and charmingly kitschy, with a menu spare enough to limit the anxieties of choice.

This simple business model has made Chick-fil-A very successful — it is to the South what In-n-Out is to California — and its founder, 92-year-old Samuel Truett Cathy, very rich. Forbes estimates his worth at $1.2 billion. And he’s devoted his considerable wealth to a life of philanthropy. He has distributed more than $35 million in scholarships to help Chick-fil-A employees go to college, another $26 million to scholarships for students at Berry College, and another $18 million for foster homes throughout the United States. He’s been honored by the Children’s Hunger Fund, and won the Horatio Alger award and the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership, for his charity.


Incidentally, Cathy is also an enthusiastic Baptist, and one domain of his charitable giving reflects that fact. Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays, includes religious language in its mission statement, and donates some money to causes like the Campus Crusade for Christ. Consequently, a meme has developed on left-leaning and pro-gay-rights websites in the past year that Chick-fil-A is virulently anti-gay. Since then, the nonagenarian Samuel Truett Cathy has gone from a noted philanthropist to a hate-figure — in two senses of the phrase — for many liberals, and has gotten a string of very negative press.

It’s become a prickly issue. The company will no longer take requests for comment regarding its donations, philanthropy, and political or religious activism. Cathy issued one statement when the controversy began to congeal: “In recent weeks, we have been accused of being anti-gay. . . . We have no agenda against anyone. While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.”

Nonetheless, when a Chick-fil-A opened in Chicago last year, activists affiliated with getequal.org protested to “stop the hate” and distributed flyers styled with a pun on its name, “Bigot-fil-A,” that the organizers apparently found clever. Elsewhere, college students have tried to get Chick-fil-As removed from their campuses. They were successful at Indiana University at South Bend. Which might have something to do with the fact that there’s exactly one Chick-fil-A in New York City: If the chain wanted to open another store here, it would likely face similar protests.

But the dirt that activists have dug up on Cathy isn’t really that incriminating, even from a pro-gay-rights perspective. His top sin, according to the agitprop flyers produced by getequal.org, is financial support for the National Christian Foundation and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Also among Cathy’s anathema affiliations is Campus Crusade for Christ. (When you think Campus Crusade for Christ, you think homophobia, right? Me neither.) There is no evidence that Chik-fil-A has funded groups that are primarily devoted to opposing same-sex marriage, such as the National Organization for Marriage (which is not to imply that such a donation would demonstrate anti-gay animus).

Judging by the arguments put forth on lefty blogs, there are three additional justifications for singling out Chick-fil-A for protests: The first is a local Chick-fil-A catering for a Pennsylvania Family Institute marriage retreat at which, PFI president Michael Geer says, “At no time . . . was the subject of same-sex marriage discussed or presented” (despite what was erroneously reported elsewhere). The second is relatively small donations to the group Focus on the Family (which, despite its reputation among bien pensants, actually devotes most of its funds to charitable efforts outside of the culture war, as David French has pointed out). And the third is Chick-fil-A’s ties to WinShape, a charity with dozens of projects, one of which is a marriage retreat limited to legally married, opposite-sex couples.

So the facts show Cathy to be a generous philanthropist who devotes millions to uncontroversial education charity; who gives some thousands more to Christian groups; who admits that for theological reasons he opposes the legal institution of same-sex marriage, but isn’t preoccupied by it; and who doesn’t exclude from his charity socially conservative groups. Reasonable people can disagree with WinShape’s requirements for couples on its marriage retreats and dislike aspects of Focus on the Family’s research and advocacy. But no reasonable person can see proof of frothing anti-gay bigotry in Samuel Truett Cathy’s donations, especially when his own words convey “love and respect” for same-sex-marriage advocates.

Activists are obviously welcome to protest and withdraw their patronage from any business, especially one whose political advocacy they disagree with. That’s democracy. But if we really want to “stop the hate” — and we should stop hate where it actually exists — we should look elsewhere than Chick-fil-A and the aged philanthropist at its head.


— Matthew Shaffer is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.


editor’s note: This article has been amended to correct the misspelling of the restaurant chain’s name.



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268419/stopping-hate-matthew-shaffer?cm_mmc=ExactTarget-_--_--_-http%3a%2f%2fwww.nationalreview.com%2farticles%2f268419%2fstopping-hate-matthew-shaffer

Just go to show the hate and anti-marriage crusade the LGBT and its' allies wage. I have gays in my family and love them, and think there should be an union of sorts for them to protect their life-long partner investment, but it should NOT be called marriage.

I don't hate the LGBT and I try not to judge. But their actions make judging them very hard. But God will straighten it all out.

Misdirected anger has the potential to become hate.

I just will ask one question, why are you people so threatened by two people who love each other wanting to marry for? Is that gonna REALLY affect your own marriages? Leave your dogma behind for a second, what they do is NOT gonna impact your lives unless you let them. Period.

who feels 'threatened'

Im not threatened by someone else eating chocolate cake all day , but that doesnt mean I would support the government promoting, encouraging, or supporting such a choice


relationships are a choice,

encouraging men and women to commit to each other sets a strong foundation for future children, families, and communities that will arise out of a man and a woman sharing a physical moment,,,,


nothing else is 'the same', nothing else needs to be encouraged or promoted with the same passion or commitment,,,,


,, no threat, just no support of dissolving marriage into merely 'love' and physical attraction,,,which any two adults can have,, including siblings and other family members

and I wouldnt support that either,,,not as a government sponsored institution anyhow...

But not everyone WANTS or has the desire to commit to the opposite sex! You are in effect telling them their love is not as good as yours because they don't love the same way, and trying to use YOUR morality to dictate what they legally can or cannot do. I don't care how you wanna try and justify it, it is flat wrong. Live and let live, it's not hard.

I've asked that before, but no one has given an actual answer that makes sense.

Their love is not the same in my eyes. Why are they so threatened they have to tear down my definition of marriage?

Translation: Abandon whatever standard that you use to determine right from wrong, because someone else does not approve of that standard.

and the law dosent dictate that anyone and everyone HAS to commit to the opposite sex

so there is no problem there,,,,

Im telling them their love is as good as mine, but their SEXUAL relationship isnt as potentially far reaching or significant,,,


marriage is not merely LOVE,, we are still all legally allowed to LOVE whomever we wish

we just arent able to have all of our SEXUAL choices legally supported, encouraged, or promoted,,,,

Why do you think the love between two consenting adults (who are not related) is not the same if they are the same sex? Who are you to judge what their love means, or assume it's not the same as love you could have with a woman? What makes your love with a woman mean more than a same sex couple?

And since when do you own the definition of marriage? How is it changing anything for you if two people you don't approve of are allowed to marry? Does it make marriage less important for you? Does it mean less to you if you get married?

Some people around here have a standard of morality that they use to determine right from wrong, a standard that includes a definition of marriage.

If you don't agree with that standard, then could you at least acknowledge its existence?

Undeniable...for now.

TODAY moral standards are on the chopping block ...

TOMORROW they're headed for the blender.

Me too, and me either.

I keep asking people to identify what morality standard that they use to determine right from wrong.

Well it says in the Bible gays must be put to death. So I guess the Bible as a moral guide is outdated. Some people years ago believe it or not actually did not allow blacks and whites to get married. I mean the same nut-jobs probably used some religious rhetoric to say it was morally wrong.

The love is not the same as it is physical pleasure only, they cannot create a child. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? My love with a woman can produce a child and has been defined as such for thousands of years. LBGT people are an abomination to the Lord and an aberration of nature as even wolves will tear a “gay” wolf to shreds. What you do in your privacy is yours, Yeah, I stood with the hundreds of thousands with Chick-fil-a on Wednesday, not the paltry handful on Friday.

Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Allowing same sex to marry sends the message it is normal, which it is not, to young people. Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people? When LGBT can marry, marriage will be a sham.