Chick-fil-A, a popular fast-food chain, has recently gained a lot of publicity due to its outspoken views on gay marriage. The company has been supporting organizations opposing same-sex marriage for years and has never been shy about their stance on this issue. Now with the presidential election looming overhead and the gay marriage debate in full force, protests swelled to extraordinary measures when President Dan Cathy, an ardent Baptist, admitted in a radio interview that his company supports “the biblical definition of a family.” And with that, eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich instantly became an edible emblem for supporting the traditional marriage.

Gay rights advocates are now boycotting the chain while groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation and National Organization for Marriage are hailing Mr. Cathy as a corporate hero. In both Boston and Chicago, the chain has been told to close, while the Jim Henson Company has already pulled its Muppets toys from Chick-fil-A’s kids’ meals. Just a few days ago, hundreds of same-sex couples demonstrated their peaceful protest in a nation-wide “kiss-in” outside a number of the chain’s 1,600-plus stores.

This all begs the question, is the backlash deserved? The Cathy family has never denied the influence of their Southern Baptist faith on the management of their company. You can also find scores of companies that advocate for same-sex marriage; if that’s the case, why is it so difficult to consider that a company can do the exact opposite?

So while supporters of Chick-fil-A’s position order their fried chicken sandwiches, where do you stand on the chain’s declaration? Do you think companies should have the freedom to publicly support or dispute such a controversial issue?