> The extent of my knowledge there was the christian underpinnings of Chick-fil-A's founder and the statements made in the article.
In the majority of these cases, people usually don't care about religion, as much as political views. IE: They may be pro-choice (while religious are typically pro-life), and that's what they're really annoyed about.
Or in this case, the Chick-Fil-A situation is 100% a gay rights issue more so than anything else.
Even the "Satanic Temple" is really just a bunch of trolls / a political group who are mostly concerned about separation of church-and-state issues. The "Satanic Temple" just uses the same tactics as right-wingnuts do: "Trigger the snowflakes". In any case, the entire strategy is to try to make the other side look bad by trolling and acting worse. I severely doubt that anyone in the Satanic Temple actually worships Satan, they seem to be atheists / secularists for the most part.
------------
Again, militant atheists who look down upon religion certainly exist. But they aren't commonly in major positions of power in my experience. So I'm always weary when any group blames things as a "War on Christians".
That article you linked seems to suggest that the school doesn't like Chick-fil-A's leanings towards gay rights. Do you tie gay rights into a religious ideals?
Is it animosity towards religion, or is it animosity towards anti-gay forces? I for one have certainly met militant atheists, so I'm not going to pretend that militant atheism doesn't exist, but they're a very small minority of people.
Most atheists I've seen are willing to listen to me talk to them about religion. They're curious, growing up with a life without religion, and they are interested in what growing up in a religious family is like. But where the line is drawn is when rights of others are trampled upon.