Hi, Joe -- articles, quotes, and even
Wikipedia summaries exist on the subject of Cathy and the company being active advocates against same-sex marriage.
@El Floppo provided a link to one such view.
This has been in the public discourse for a while, and easily Google-able. As such, your request for links comes across to me not so much as wanting information as it is to justify my own viewpoint in the face of the information that's out there. Which is fair, but if indeed that's the case, it's a bit of an indirect approach.
But here are my thoughts (with a link or two) regardless:
@avoiding injuries gets to the crux of it in that this -- like any issue -- isn't black and white, open to interpretation, and is colored by both the slant of coverage and one's own world view and morals. Above all I respect the effort of reading information and drawing one's own conclusion.
I've read multiple articles and viewpoints on this issue, and my conclusion is that when a
CEO is public about being anti-gay marriage, and uses corporate power (i.e. dollars) to fund groups that among their charter and activities, support ideology and action that oppose gay marriage, it shows a very clear agenda of what's important to that CEO and company. And this particular stance is one I simply disagree with, and think is deplorable.
People are free to believe what they want to believe, and people are free to support causes they believe in. But IMO people -- and especially corporations with far more resources and power than the average person -- shouldn't force their beliefs on others. And this particular belief is one, IMO, that is driven by outdated religious values that are much more harmful than helpful in today's society, and fundamentally disrespect others' rights to live their life the way they see fit.
Objectively, I can say that the company has made obvious strides in the last few years to reverse itself from its CEO's public statements about LGBTQ lifestyles, and from its funding activities. To me, this is a good step, but a step that shouldn't have to have been taken in the first place.
It's also arguable how consistent they've been in ceasing such funding.