The Chick-Fil-A Controversy

[emilynghiem]

It wouldn't surprise me if this were 1960 and we were arguing about black and white people getting married and you were calling me a bigot because I thought not allowing them to do so was bigoted.

There is one big difference I can name off the top of my head, Ravi.

There are cases where people who "used to" act and identify themselves as homosexual
later were healed of the abuses that caused what they acknowledge to be
unnatural behavior which was not their permanent state so they changed.

I have yet to meet any cases of black or white people whose spiritual healing caused their race to change to something else!

Some people are born and natural identify and remain homosexual all their lives.
Others can change, if those conditions are unnatural to them or caused by abuse etc.

But people's race is what they are by birth, so this is not an accurate comparison.
There is a lot more going on with homosexuality, that cannot be painted all one way or the other. People who attempt to do so, to make all the rules black and white, makes
it even harder to resolve conflicts between cases that are not all the same, where
some are natural, some are unnatural, some can be changed, and some cannot be.

 

[OODA_Loop]

When they produce a genetic determiner I'll grant them rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

You guys can't have it both ways. You either allow somebody to have opinions or convictions you don't like or you open wide the door for you to be punished for the opinions and convictions you hold and others don't like.

They are allowed to have opinions. However, these opinions in particular support the discrimination of a group of Americans. That makes the opinion holders unAmerican. Which they are welcome to be but they can expect not to be called on it.

The constitution guarantees equal rights for all law abiding groups.

It's pretty simple.

Dear Ravi: there is still the ability to hold and express one's opinion against gay marriage, and yet NOT discriminate in ways that deny equal rights to such persons.

you are equating the two as if these are inseparable.

for one thing, it is possible and more consistent to remove marriage from the state's jurisdiction and only have it through the church. and let the state govern civil contracts unions and estates/custody agreements only. So you can still have your views, yet not impose discriminate or deny others rights.

There are ways to avoid using laws to impose gay marriage on people who disagree,
OR to deny gay marriage to people who want those equal rights, where EVERYONE can have exercise free speech and religious freedom equally
to express conflicting views WITHOUT imposing on anyone!

Ravi I deal with this all the time as a prochoice person who equally defends the rights of my prolife friends NOT to have legislation that is biased against or excludes their views either!

Does it make me "unamerican" to "discriminate against prolife advocates who believe abortion should be illegal" because I support and promote prochoice approaches?

As a Constitutionalist I believe it my equal duty and responsibility to defend the beliefs of people who are for or against gay marriage, and people like the head of Chick Fil A and the Boston Mayor who wish to speak out for their position or against the other.

You have the right to your personal views and freedom to express that.

I just ask you take equal responsibility to be as consistent as possible,
before you project blame on other people as bigots if you risk doing the same
by discriminating against a whole group you have labeled derogatorily as unamerican.

If you want to appear as self-conflicted as the people you oppose for that very reason,
you have that choice to treat them in the same negative way as they do, but your arguments will go round and round in circles because you are stooping to their level.

 

[Valerie]

When they produce a genetic determiner I'll grant them rights.

Oh you will, will you...........? ( )

 

[Vast LWC]

NYC mayor: Chick-fil-A flap not govt's business | Fox News

Mayors of three cities--Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco--are on record that Chick-Fil-A franchises are not welcome in their cities because of Chick-Fil-A's support of traditional marriage and opposition to same sex marriage. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is a strong advocate of same sex marriage but opposes restrictions on free enterprise based on political views.

The ACLU has gotten involved and though they too are strong advocates of same sex marriage, they oppose denying franchise privileges to Chick-Fil-A based on this issue. As they point out, if you can deny a business the right to do business based on their anti-gay marriage position, then there is nothing to deny a business the right to do business if it is pro same sex marriage.

Discuss and please try to keep it civil and on topic.

This is NOT about the pros and cons of same sex marriage, but rather the concept of denying a business ability to do business based purely on its social or political views.

Local governments have banned liquor sales based on religious beliefs before, and no-one's complained.

What's different here?

 

[OODA_Loop]

When they produce a genetic determiner I'll grant them rights.

Oh you will, will you...........? ( )

Yes until then it seems at best a choice. At worst a DSM classified paraphilia as it was until 1973 and a political movement, akin to what he have today, had it removed.

As I said go for it, do what you do. But I personally dont see protected status or rights anymore than I do the person who enjoys infantilism or any other classified paraphilia.

 

[BDBoop]

When they produce a genetic determiner I'll grant them rights.

Oh you will, will you...........? ( )

Yes until then it seems at best a choice. At worst a DSM classified paraphilia as it was until 1973 and a political movement, akin to what he have today, had it removed.

As I said go for it, do what you do. But I personally dont see protected status or rights anymore than I do the person who enjoys infantilism or any other classified paraphilia.

Rights are not yours to grant.

 

[Foxfyre]

NYC mayor: Chick-fil-A flap not govt's business | Fox News

Mayors of three cities--Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco--are on record that Chick-Fil-A franchises are not welcome in their cities because of Chick-Fil-A's support of traditional marriage and opposition to same sex marriage. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is a strong advocate of same sex marriage but opposes restrictions on free enterprise based on political views.

The ACLU has gotten involved and though they too are strong advocates of same sex marriage, they oppose denying franchise privileges to Chick-Fil-A based on this issue. As they point out, if you can deny a business the right to do business based on their anti-gay marriage position, then there is nothing to deny a business the right to do business if it is pro same sex marriage.

Discuss and please try to keep it civil and on topic.

This is NOT about the pros and cons of same sex marriage, but rather the concept of denying a business ability to do business based purely on its social or political views.

Local governments have banned liquor sales based on religious beliefs before, and no-one's complained.

What's different here?

Liquor is a product and it is within a community's prerogative to determine whether their community will be 'wet' or 'dry'. So yes, community or state laws could limit what and where or if liquor will be allowed to be sold and/or consumed in any venue it wishes. So long as the law is equally applied to all without prejudice, no problem.

But if a person is denied a license or is picketed or his business is disrupted purely because he favors liquor sales or is opposed to liquor sales, that would be a definite violation of his unalienable right to hold any opinion that he holds.

 

[emilynghiem]

Local governments have banned liquor sales based on religious beliefs before, and no-one's complained.

What's different here?

Laws punishing murder with death can also be acknowledged as religious based.
As long as people agree, they don't cry for separation of church and state.
It is when people disagree, they look for reasons to blame it on and reject.

As for alcohol sales, advocates for legalizing marijuana have long argued
that alcohol is more dangerous. The laws are not consistent, and it
all depends if people consent to the status quo or to change it. Any
arguments they make follow from that motivation.

Look at the health care bill as another example.
All the arguments against legislating prolife agenda through the state
could be applied to striking down the health care mandates.
however, where political agenda is involved, it's ok to impose govt mandates
in one case against the free choice of opponents, but not the other case.
Totally inconsistent.
Either the prolife movement is getting a taste of their own medicine,
by having legislation shoved down on them in violation of free choice, so they know what it feels like, or the prochoice people are having to answer to their own hypocrisy on this bill!

 

[Pho_King]

A. if the position is a social or personal view, then no, the City cannot discriminate against a business on the basis of religion as long as it is not promoting something illegal.

B. However, I would recommend for Cities and States to require certain standards when issuing licenses to large corporations or religious institutions; where collective resources or influence are not abused to oppress individuals affected by the actions of the institution.
The whole reason the Bill of Rights was added as a requirement in the agreement to ratify the Constitution was to prevent the abuse of individuals by collective power of govt; and this same check and balance is needed for other large institutions for similar reasons.

As corporations or churches invoke rights under the Bill of Rights, they should equally be held to enforce the same standards of equal due process and equal protection of the law for others; and cannot abuse those rights to deny, obstruct or abridge the same of others, especially of individuals.

I am concerned about abuse of power in general, whether government, legal or judicial, corporate or religious, or relationship abuse,
all of which could be prevented or corrected by agreeing to follow the same basic standards of Constitution protections and due process required of govt.

However in this case, simply stating a person's religious beliefs by free speech is NOT imposing on or abridging rights of others to exercise the same. Spreading misinformation by slander or libel might be obstructive, so a process should be in place for corrections and redressing grievances in order to resolve conflicts and prevent obstruction of free speech, democratic process, and mediation needed to represent, include and protect all interests equally.

I believe the Chick Fil A expressions of support or opposition fall under A and do NOT constitute violations to be banned, except where people become disruptive and cause a breach of the peace against civil laws. Again, to prevent any such conflicts in beliefs or expressions thereof from escalating into abusive harassment, or other civil or criminal violations, I would require corporations and churches to adopt some policy similar to the Bill of Rights where collective authority, influence or resources are not abused but kept in check by providing for free and equal access to due process for resolving grievances whenever abuses are reported.

If you want to exercise rights under the law, you should be expected to enforce and uphold the same laws for all persons respecting the same standards.

What if they ban any business that expresses a bigoted view against a portion of the population? Would the city be within its rights?

For instance, in Boston gay marriage is legal. If a business comes in and makes bigoted and intolerant remarks about something that is legal, why must a city accept them? Simply because Cathy is hiding behind his (erroneous, imo) religious beliefs?

Because, in America, freedom of speech means something. This is not Canada or great Britain.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

There's something really sickening in the realization that thousands of people proudly support discrimination.

I don't look at this whole issue as discrimination. Now if homosexual people were refused service at Chick-Fil-A or anywhere else because of their preference, then that would be discrimination no doubt about it because them being refused service would have an actual affect in their life. People, who run a business, saying that they are against a certain way of being and nothing more than that is just them people exercising a right that everyone has, especially when that is all that them people are and not those who can actually have a real say on how things go lawfully.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Pho_King]

The man reportedly sent Millions of dollars of support to organizations which seek to discriminate against a certain set of Americans. FACT not opinion.

The man is certainly entitled to his opinion, but people need to realize that this never was a matter of free speech. HE chose to speak out and highlight his opinion and now people are choosing to speak out and highlight their own opinions, which are all over the road, more-often-than-not missing the mark, and ultimately perceived as hurtful if not hateful, as well as purposely politically divisive.

Those in a position of power in certain cities have already acknowledged they have no right to deny business permits over opinions, so in fact that never really was an issue either, except in the minds of the confused rabble...

People who show up in support of this man and his business specifically to support his "free speech" or his "right" as an opinionated Christian to run a business, are being fooled AS IF those things are really in question in America today.

It's a shame our leaders are so lame they can't convey a more honest message and explain to the rabble that GOD has nothing to do with Civil Marriage and that OPINIONS never really mattered in questions of Civil Rights.

Gay people exist in America, and the committed life partnerships of ALL consenting adult Citizens should rightfully be recognized equally under State law, which is Constitutionally SEPARATE from God's law.

you don't believe that all consenting adult citizens should have their relationships legally recognized.

Go take a comprehension course and get back to me...

I read and understood your dishonest quote. You do not believe in the freedom of all consenting adult deviants to have their relationships legally recognized. What part of that is troubling to you?

 

[Pho_King]

You guys can't have it both ways. You either allow somebody to have opinions or convictions you don't like or you open wide the door for you to be punished for the opinions and convictions you hold and others don't like.

They are allowed to have opinions. However, these opinions in particular support the discrimination of a group of Americans. That makes the opinion holders unAmerican. Which they are welcome to be but they can expect not to be called on it.

The constitution guarantees equal rights for all law abiding groups.

It's pretty simple.

Well, we have T least one retard on the board that fails to realize that discrimination is not, on it's face, unconstitutional or unamerican. Homos are retarded.

 

[Valerie]

you don't believe that all consenting adult citizens should have their relationships legally recognized.

Go take a comprehension course and get back to me...

I read and understood your dishonest quote. You do not believe in the freedom of all consenting adult deviants to have their relationships legally recognized. What part of that is troubling to you?

Fuck off, retard...

 

[Buford]

you don't believe that all consenting adult citizens should have their relationships legally recognized.

Go take a comprehension course and get back to me...

I read and understood your dishonest quote. You do not believe in the freedom of all consenting adult deviants to have their relationships legally recognized. What part of that is troubling to you?

The fact you have no shame. That's very troubling for society and a healthy culture.

 

[Pho_King]

Go take a comprehension course and get back to me...

I read and understood your dishonest quote. You do not believe in the freedom of all consenting adult deviants to have their relationships legally recognized. What part of that is troubling to you?

Fuck off, retard...

That's what I thought. You know your statement was a lie.

 

[Valerie]

I read and understood your dishonest quote. You do not believe in the freedom of all consenting adult deviants to have their relationships legally recognized. What part of that is troubling to you?

Fuck off, retard...

That's what I thought. You know your statement was a lie.

Take off joker. The only lie here is your posts...

 

[Foxfyre]

From the OP (and if this thread is not a huge billboard supporting the need for the CDZ, I can't imagine what would):

Discuss and please try to keep it civil and on topic.

This is NOT about the pros and cons of same sex marriage, but rather the concept of denying a business ability to do business based purely on its social or political views.

 

[Pho_King]

Fuck off, retard...

That's what I thought. You know your statement was a lie.

Take off joker. The only lie here is your posts...

Ok. Well it's good to know that you believe consenting adult relatives should be able to marry, as well as any group of three or more. I assume you also agree that a person can have two seperate spouses. What's that you say? You would still discriminate against those deviant relationships? I thought so. Thanks for reinforcing that you actually do not believ in marriage or any consenting adults. It's ok to think homos are special. But you should just come out and say so, instead of acting like you truly believe in the shit that comes frm your cake hole.

 

[Ravi]

It wouldn't surprise me if this were 1960 and we were arguing about black and white people getting married and you were calling me a bigot because I thought not allowing them to do so was bigoted.

There is one big difference I can name off the top of my head, Ravi.

There are cases where people who "used to" act and identify themselves as homosexual
later were healed of the abuses that caused what they acknowledge to be
unnatural behavior which was not their permanent state so they changed.

I have yet to meet any cases of black or white people whose spiritual healing caused their race to change to something else!

Some people are born and natural identify and remain homosexual all their lives.
Others can change, if those conditions are unnatural to them or caused by abuse etc.

But people's race is what they are by birth, so this is not an accurate comparison.
There is a lot more going on with homosexuality, that cannot be painted all one way or the other. People who attempt to do so, to make all the rules black and white, makes
it even harder to resolve conflicts between cases that are not all the same, where
some are natural, some are unnatural, some can be changed, and some cannot be.

Oh, Jebus. You're a nut case.