This article talks about Chick-Fil-A actually coming out and saying something themselves in 2020, and there is nothing in it that states that they reneged on that statement about their charitable giving in 2020.
"But one of those things seems to be changing next year. The fast-food chain is changing its charitable giving approach in 2020 — and says, in an oblique way, that it will no longer donate to such organizations.
The Chick-fil-A Foundation will instead take “a more focused giving approach,” Chick-fil-A announced in a Monday press release. The foundation has set aside $9 million for 2020 that will be split between three initiatives: promoting youth education, combating youth homelessness, and fighting hunger. Those funds will be distributed to Junior Achievement USA, Covenant House International, and local food banks in cities where the chain opens new locations."
The 2012 issue you refer to as "reneged" was a statement that was not from Chick-Fil-A, it was a third party, which CFA did not acknowledge as true, as stated in the article their response was boiler plate. The "reneged" portion is acknowledged as previous commitments. Most people would favor honoring something you committed to, but perhaps you are not one of those people.
"As I stated above, this country has rather quickly moved to a 70+% acceptance level for the LGBTQ+ community, and that includes an awful lot of Christians/Catholics, so it is inaccurate to imply that there is only "One" Christian perspective on that group. There are multiple examples of acceptance...even into our own military ranks...and for good reason...they do the job well."
Nobody is arguing acceptance of LGBTQ+ in America, other than LGBTQ+ activist groups. Do what you want to do in your own life. I serve in the military, so I know about acceptance in the military, but thanks for letting me know. My personal stance has always been I don't give a shit what you look like, just do your damn job, and do it well. If you think I am implying that there is only "One" Christian perspective, then I apologize for not being clear. My point in my statement was that one organization with Christian (Catholic) beliefs denying business to another organization with Christian (likely Southern Baptist) beliefs, only on the basis of their (SB) beliefs, which don't contradict your Church doctrine/beliefs, seems odd, to me.
"Notre Dame should recognize the inherent discrimination practiced by the ownership of CFA and make a vendor choice that does not facilitate the transfer of student, faculty and staff funds into the pockets of openly discriminatory people...that's part of fighting for social justice, IMO."
First of all, this is just a great example of how social justice warriors don't understand what they are doing or saying. Notre Dame should recognize the inherent discrimination practiced by the Catholic Church, and should stop being a Catholic University, because Social Justice.
Mr. Cathy has his own beliefs, and he has supported multiple Christian organizations in the past with his charitable giving through the WinShape Foundation. As is usual with all social justice causes, if you look hard enough you will find something to be mad about and offended. He made comments about his personal beliefs in an interview, so people started cherry picking his charitable giving to find the outrage, and now we have Chick-Fil-A is an anti-LGBTQ+ organization. I find it ridiculous, but that's my opinion. I had a co-worker who would not eat at CFA, I asked him why, and he said "because if that old white dude hates gay people, you know how he probably feels about black people too." That's his choice as well.
You stuck to your talking points about acceptance and the charitable giving, even though you completely misinterpreted the article, and that's fine, but next time you dig up an article you really should make sure it says what you want it to say.