Arguably, the Chick-fil-A fiasco has subsided with the completion of last week’s public demonstrations, but in its wake lie the complicated questions of where the chips fell. Here’s a round-up of issues to consider in the aftermath:

The Political Made Personal

The high visibility of the company’s anti-gay positions and giving has clearly had an impact, but one much less measurable than most of the coverage can truly examine: on the personal level. As people proudly boasted their support for Chick-fil-A on Facebook and other social media outlets, their LGBT family and friends were faced with the choice of how to respond, if at all. Justin Michael, a gay Christian, wrote to The Advocate about addressing this very situation with his parents:

I am a gay Christian.  This whole Chick-fil-A controversy meant nearly nothing to me until I saw a picture of my conservative parents (whom I love deeply) on Facebook yesterday proudly holding their Chick-fil-A sandwiches.

I broke down crying in front of my computer screen. And since I’m not good with speaking how I feel, I wrote my mother a Facebook message with my concerns about the photos.

She took them down and apologized for the insensitivity.  She was just supporting a man’s right for “freedom of speech.”

Getting The Talking Points Right

Indeed, this “freedom of speech” argument unfortunately dominated the coverage, despite being largely irrelevant to the actual controversy. There is no legal way for a city to block Chick-fil-A so long as it doesn’t discriminate, nor has anyone tried to censor Dan Cathy’s vitriolic remarks. Despite how quickly lawmakers backed away from empty threats to interfere with Chick-fil-A’s business, the media continued to let this infringement-of-freedom talking point circumvent the LGBT community’s objections. As a result, many would-be LGBT allies were seemingly defending Chick-fil-A by catering to this strawman talking point. The editorial board at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette acknowledged how many have gotten this wrong:

This had the effect of putting the company into the hottest broiler of the culture wars — the issue of same-sex marriage — but in America people can freely state their principles and act on them. And other people can criticize them for it. That’s how the First Amendment works. Those diners who came out last Wednesday in part because they thought that Chick-fil-A was being denied its First Amendment rights were wrong about that.

The Boston Globe similarly argued today that Mayor Tom Menino (D) hurt marriage equality efforts by turning “bullies like Dan Cathy into martyrs.” Michaelangelo Signorile further offered insights into how the messaging got off the tracks, how LGBT leadership was unfortunately not at the forefront of the effort, and how the response was poorly organized at various levels. There is much to be learned from the past three weeks that can be applied in future efforts to dissuade people from supporting anti-gay companies and organizations.
Read more

(Click to see full-size.)

Defenders of Chick-fil-A’s anti-equality positions have argued that the company simply believes in the “biblical definition of marriage.” An infographic has been circulating the web demonstrating the actual biblical definitions of marriage, including a man, his wife, and his concubines; a man, his wife, and her slaves; a man and his many wives; a rapist and his victim; etc. The National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute responded to the infographic on Facebook and its blog today, arguing that it actually supports conservatives’ case against same-sex marriage:

This image has been making the rounds on Facebook, in an attempt to discredit those of us who insist that removing the gender requirement is redefining marriage. Look carefully at the image and you will see that in ALL of the examples, both genders are represented. This image reinforces the conservative position about needing a gender requirement, it does not undermine our position. And here is why: marriage has always been understood primarily as the means to bearing and raising children. Yes marriage provides companionship to the married partners, but that has never been the reason we needed marriage as a society.

Apparently, it was okay to redefine marriage so that women were not treated as subordinate property — as they were in every example in the graphic — but suddenly it’s problematic to give same-sex families the same respect and security as other couples. If NOM and its Ruth Institute really believe that the blatant hypocrisy of selective Biblical interpretation adds integrity to their argument, let them continue to flaunt it. It only illuminates their obvious bias against gays and lesbians.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy preaching about his company's religious practices.

Earlier this week, a ThinkProgress reader wrote us, objecting to our description of Chick-fil-A as a “Christian-run” company. He cited the many steps the Episcopal Church has taken toward supporting LGBT equality as “real Christianity in action,” accusing Chick-fil-A of using Christianity as “cover for their own bigotry.” Obviously, ThinkProgress cannot and will not impose judgment upon how any individual, anti-LGBT or otherwise, expresses their religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the reader’s concern has considerable merit, and as conservatives flock to “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” it’s important to consider what exactly they are defending and how.

Arguably, the rise of the Christian Right is due for a 40th anniversary to mark the appropriation of Christianity by conservatives like Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Ralph Reed. This coalition of mostly evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Mormons has largely succeeded in reducing the cultural definition of being Christian to those who share their beliefs. The present-day ravings of faux-historian David Barton seek to push even farther and erase the religious diversity at the heart of American patriotism. The “culture war” over LGBT equality presents one of the clearest dividing lines, with anti-gay talking heads like Tony Perkins over-dominating the media on behalf of “Christianity” while LGBT-affirming Christians are severely under-represented.

Some have tried to shrug off the controversy about Chick-fil-A’s donations to anti-gay hate groups and condemnations of marriage equality, but it provides a very clear example of how conservatives hide behind the respect they expect for their religious beliefs to avoid accountability for the harm caused by their anti-gay words and actions. In doing so, they maintain a wedge between “Christianity” and the LGBT community that is far more volatile than the race wedges they have attempted. Here are some current examples of this “cover” in action:

• Mike Huckabee said Chick-fil-A must be defended against “hate speech and economic bullying” from those who “disenfranchise” Christians.
• Sarah Palin decried Chick-fil-A’s detractors as the ones who are “intolerant, bigoted, and hypocritical” for not agreeing with the comments made by its president, Dan Cathy.
• Conservative columnist Star Parker accused “homosexual activists” of a “hate campaign” against Chick-fil-A for the “crime of being a Christian.”
• Robert Knight of the conservative American Civil Rights Union described the Chick-fil-A controversy as a “smear campaign” and “fascistic assault” by “enraged liberals who are at war with nature and nature’s God.”
• Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George stood by Chick-fil-A because allowing marriage equality would violate the “constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief and religious practice.”
• Former Los Angeles Archbishop Cardinal Roger M. Mahony accused those who disagree with Chick-fil-A of trying to “punish us for clinging to and expressing our faith beliefs.”
• The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue believes educated white people “want to punish those who hold to the traditional view,” an effort he describes as “madness laced with fascistic elements.”
• Even the National Organization for Marriage’s official “Thank Chick-fil-A” page identifies a “culture increasingly hostile to traditional and especially Christian values,” urging supporters to “stand firm by your Christian beliefs.”

But this is all a façade — one rife with Biblical hypocrisy, at that. There is nothing about the Chick-fil-A controversy that has anything to do with so-called “religious freedom.” The company donates millions of dollars yearly to organizations that actively work against the safety and health of LGBT people. Its president preaches that gays and lesbians should be scorned as “twisted up stuff” who “invite God’s judgment” upon society. These are all actions with direct consequences for LGBT people, and religion in no way justifies them. Certainly, many who identify as Christians — including many LGBT people — see Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay principles as foreign to their inclusive faiths, but their voices are largely absent from the public conversation.

The takeaway here must be how lopsided the “religious freedom” talking point is. If standing up for the fair treatment of LGBT people is an attack on conservative religious beliefs, then denying LGBT equality is just as much an attack on inclusive religious beliefs. Religion, itself, is thus a moot point in the debate, a “headless monster” used by conservatives only to further stigmatize and disenfranchize the LGBT community. Nobody should tolerate that, no matter how they spiritually identify.

Pastor and Mrs. Dennis Leatherman

Maryland Pastor Dennis Leatherman is the latest conservative religious leader this week to attempt to walk back his comments supporting the killing of gay people. In a recent sermon, he told his congregation at the Mountain Lake Independent Baptist Church that his “flesh kind of likes the idea” of killing all gay people, but that doing so would be “wrong” because it “violates scripture.” On the church’s website, Leatherman now offers this significant retraction:

Pastor Dennis Leatherman and the Mountain Lake Independent Baptist Church never has, does not now, and never will advocate the incarceration, mistreatment, and especially not the killing of homosexuals (or any other group of people).

In a recent 50 minute message on homosexuality, Pastor Leatherman made a 5 second reference to his “flesh.” The term “flesh” in the Bible simply refers to our fallen, sinful nature. It is through the “new birth” of trusting Jesus Christ as Saviour that our nature is changed (2 Cor. 5:17, Galatians 5:19-24).  Here is the full quote in question, “First of all, there is a danger of reacting in the flesh, of responding not in a scriptural, spiritual way, but in a fleshly way. ‘Kill them all. Right?’ I will be very honest with you. My flesh kind of likes that idea. But it grieves the Holy Spirit. It violates Scripture. It is wrong.” You cannot get any clearer, “it is wrong” to respond to homosexuality in any other way than a scriptural, spiritually mature and firmly compassionate way. To suggest that Pastor Leatherman or the church advocates violence of any type toward homosexuals is to completely misconstrue what his message was saying.

We DO NOT advocate (or like) the idea killing of any individuals or group of people. Though we understand the Bible to teach that homosexuality is wrong (like many other sins mentioned throughout scripture), we also understand that the Bible teaches we are to be kind to all men, regardless of their lifestyle.

So Leatherman is willing to admit that he kind of likes the idea that all gay people should be killed, but that doesn’t mean he actually likes the idea of killing them himself. This seems to be a superfluous distinction.

Far-right church leaders like Leatherman, Curtis Knapp, and Jeff Sangl should stop trying to have it both ways. If they preach anti-gay hate, they should own it. In all three cases, they’ve attempted to manage damage control without actually correcting their positions. They clearly all believe that gay people are going to Hell and should be treated as such in life. Reaffirming their anti-gay disdain in a less violent way doesn’t help their public image — it’s just fuel on the fire.

Kansas pastor Curtis Knapp is one of many far-right religious leaders under fire this week for preaching violent anti-gay rhetoric, telling his congregation at New Hope Baptist Church that homophobia is good because it keeps gay people in the closet, adding, “Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them? No, I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.” He defended his remarks yesterday on CNN:

KNAPP: We punish pedophilia. We punish incest. We punish polygamy and various things. It’s only homosexuality that is lifted out as an exemption. In Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act. They shall surely be put to death.” [...]

I don’t think homosexuals have anything to worry about. I don’t think the government’s going to do that. They don’t have anything to worry about from me. I don’t believe I should lay a finger against them. My hope is for their salvation, not for their death.

Watch it:

It’s good to know that gay people have “nothing to worry about” from a conservative pastor who openly advocates for their genocide.

Indiana’s Apostolic Truth Tabernacle Church has made national news since a video surfaced this week of Pastor Jeff Sangl and his congregation encouraging a four-year-old singing a song called, “Ain’t no homos gonna make it to heaven.” The church is in apparent damage control, but sending a variety of mixed messages. The following statement appeared on the church’s website:

The Pastor and members of Apostolic Truth Tabernacle do not condone, teach, or practice hate of any person for any reason. We believe and hope that every person can find true Bible salvation and the mercy and grace of God in their lives. We are a strong advocate of the family unit according to the teachings and precepts found in the Holy Bible. We believe the Holy Bible is the Divinely-inspired Word of God and we will continue to uphold and preach that which is found in scripture.

Of course, this statement doesn’t exactly distance itself from the message of the song, which church members have defended. One congregant stood behind the video, saying, “The people who are upset just don’t read the word of God. If we don’t teach the children the truth early they will never learn… Of course we applauded a child who is singing a song about God.”

Meanwhile, Pastor Sangl has received death threats, leading him to abruptly leave for vacation with his wife without telling anyone where they were going. Church members are taking turns keeping vigil over their church to provide extra security as a result of harassing phone calls.

Dan Savage noted yesterday that Apostolic Truth Tabernacle is in Greensburg, IN, which is where Billy Lucas lived. Billy committed suicide in 2010 after being bullied for being gay, and his death was one in a spate of similar suicides that led Savage to create the It Gets Better project. If four-year-olds in Greensburg are still being taught to celebrate the idea that all gay people deserve to go to hell, it’s not getting better there yet.

In churches across the country, bigoted pastors with political missions are preaching hate speech every Sunday.

Despite the Bible’s message of love, compassion, and respect, there are an unknown number of conservative congregation heads using their pulpits to push animosity and hate — aimed mostly at the political hot topics of the day.

In the fallout from President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality, video and audio has cropped up of several right-wing pastors in different states advocating physical violence toward gay people and generally disparaging the LGBT community. Here are some of the worst religious messages being shared at church:

–North Carolina Pastor argues for a gay concentration camp. Charles Worley told his congregation, “Have that fence electrified so [the homosexuals] can’t get out. Feed ‘em, and– And you know what? In a few years they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.”

– Kansas Pastor says gays should be put to death. Curtis Knapp tells his church, “Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them? No, I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.” Listen:

– Indiana Pastor says gay marriage leads to abuse of children. “A decision to allow same-sex marriages today lays the foundation for the definition of marriage to become Silly Putty tomorrow capable of endless reshaping in the future,” says Pastor Paul Brewster. “That, in turn, is a recipe for children to be made victims of all sorts of abuse and the welfare of our society to receive a fatal blow.”

– Maryland Pastor says his ‘flesh’ likes the idea of killing gays. Dennis Leatherman shouts, “Kill them all. Right? I will be very honest with you. My flesh kind of likes that idea. But it grieves the Holy Spirit. It violates Scripture.” Listen:

– Pastor advocates child abuse on gay children. Sean Harris says if a son shows what is perceived as effeminate behavior, a parent should “squash that like a cockroach,” and if they see their son “dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch.”

– At church, a child sings “ain’t no homo gonna make it to heaven” — in the same town where a fifteen year old killed himself after being bullied for being perceived of as gay by his classmates. Pastor Jeff Sangl of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle cheers on.Watch it:

These incidents were caught on video or audio, but there are likely many, many more sermons where hate speech goes unrecorded and unrecognized. These pastors, of course, do not represent Christians broadly, but where this hatefulness goes unchecked, it discredits religious institutions as a whole and harms every neighborhood that it infiltrates.

At a high school journalism conference last month, Dan Savage called out the Biblical hypocrisy when scripture is used to justify anti-gay positions while similar verses are ignored. The National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown accused Savage of bullying and challenged him to a debate: “You name the time and the place and let’s see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back.” Savage accepted this debate, and today on his podcast outlined exactly what time and place Brown could meet him:

SAVAGE: Where? My dining room table. Place? Seattle, Washington. Here’s the deal. We can fill a room with my screaming partisans and your screaming partisans and we’ll both play to our respective peanut galleries and I think both of us have a little bit of grandstander in souls and we will work that and I think that will create more heat than light. And so what I’d like to do is challenge you to come to my house for dinner. Bring the wife. My husband will be there. and I will hire a video crew and we will videotape sort of an after dinner debate.

The trick here is you have to knowledge my humanity by accepting my hospitality and I have to acknowledge yours by extending my hospitality to you. And I’m willing to do that.

Mark Oppenheimer, a New York Times journalist who has profiled both Savage and NOM’s Maggie Gallagher, has agreed to moderate the debate, and Savage’s neighbor will cook the meal. Brown will be allowed to confirm the tape has not been edited before it’s released so that there is “no trickery.”

Brian Brown has yet to respond. Stay tuned.

Mississippi Rep. Andy Gipson (R)

Last week, Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson (R) condemned the gay community on his Facebook wall, citing Leviticus 20:13, which opponents of LGBT equality interpret as calling for gay men to be put to death. Responding to a Change.org petition calling for his apology, Gipson stated on Friday, “I do not, cannot, and will not apologize for the inspired truth of God’s Word.” Yesterday, he has offered an official statement attempting to distance himself from those remarks:

Since that time, a well-known radical liberal blog (The Huffington Post) ran an article falsely claiming that this Facebook post was a call “to kill gay people.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I have never publicly or privately called for the killing of any people. I believe all people are created in the image of God and I stand firmly for the sanctity of all human life. All people are entitled to the protection of the laws of our nation and state protecting human life.

Any reasonable person who reads the actual post can see that both scriptures were cited only for the proposition that same-sex marriage is morally objectionable — sin. I believe this reflects the values of the vast majority of Mississippians and the people of District 77 whom I represent.

Many Biblical scholars counter the notion that this Leviticus verse actually translates to modern-day understandings of homosexuality. But any reasonable person who reads the scripture he cited for the purposes he cited it can see that if it condemns homosexuality as a sin, then it also calls for gays to be put to death. As long as Gipson stands by his interpretation of Leviticus 20:13 as the “inspired truth of God’s Word,” it is reasonable to conclude that he endorses its message. If he does not actually believe the words on the page as they are written, he should specifically qualify that he makes exceptions for which of God’s Words are inspired truth or admit that he has misinterpreted the scripture.