The Chick-Fil-A Controversy

[Valerie]

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.

It IS a free speech issue so long as there is no evidence that the business discriminates against anybody in their business practices, and I don't believe anybody can show that they do. Everybody is not going to agree with everybody ever, and if we truly believe in First Amendment Rights, nobody should be denied their livelihood because they hold views that we consider offensive, wrong, disrespectful, or bigoted.

To choose to not patronize such a business is your own right to do. To try to harm or destroy or deny a business purely because the owner holds views you find offensive is just plain wrong.

I agree it's never right to harm or destroy things, physically...But people have a right to their opinions and can support a business OR protest a business via pickets and public displays, political bully pulpits and organized boycotts, or by whatever LEGAL means they choose...

Again, no one has denied his freedom to speak his opinion, and the political powers-that-be have already acknowledged that 1st Amendment protections prohibit denying of business permits over opinions, so a lot of people are really "standing up" for fallacies...

 

[Foxfyre]

Still, those who would protest Chick-fil-a and attempt to disrupt their business because the owner has expressed views they don't like are the intolerant ones. Not Chick-fil-a.

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I didn't delete anything. You edited. Not sure why you've felt the need to lie.

LOL people can click the little symbol that takes them back to the original post of mine you quoted and see you cut out the context of what I said.

The time of my edit 11:49, the time of your post 11:50.

 

[Ravi]

I didn't delete anything. You edited. Not sure why you've felt the need to lie.

LOL people can click the little symbol that takes them back to the original post of mine you quoted and see you cut out the context of what I said.

The time of my edit 11:49, the time of your post 11:50.

Dude, just stop it. I quoted your post, you must have been editing while I was typing my reply.

 

[Foxfyre]

To disrupt somebody's livelihood because they have expressed an opinion you don't like is intolerance and bigotry pure and simple and it is wrong however 'legal' it might be. It is your right to express your contempt by not patronizing the offensive business. It is wrong to attempt to punish the business and deny the owners their livelihood not because of any wrong activity but for simply expressing a point of view you don't accept or like.

 

[Ravi]

No one is disrupting anyone's livelihood.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I didn't delete anything. You edited. Not sure why you've felt the need to lie.

LOL people can click the little symbol that takes them back to the original post of mine you quoted and see you cut out the context of what I said.

The time of my edit 11:49, the time of your post 11:50.

Dude, just stop it. I quoted your post, you must have been editing while I was typing my reply.

Let me point out another instance of your inability to understand people's actual positions and words and how you dishonestly portray what is said.

The thing is, I made a point to support Chick-fil-a because I support people being allowed to be who they are. Chick-fil-a is pro traditional marriage. Flying Star is just as openly pro-gay-marriage and pro gay rights. Should anybody organize a protest against a Flying Star or suggest they should be denied a business license because they expressed their views, I would be joining in support of their right to be who they are also.

You are supporting denying rights to a certain class of people. That's about as unAmerican as it gets.

Your reading dysfunction is showing again Ravi. How you could that conclusion from my post is simply amazing. But oh well. . . .

You "support people being allowed to be who they are" as long as you agree with what they are.
In this case, what they are are bigots that wish to deny one group of people the same rights that another group of people enjoy.

You are showing a pattern here.

 

[Valerie]

LOL people can click the little symbol that takes them back to the original post of mine you quoted and see you cut out the context of what I said.

The time of my edit 11:49, the time of your post 11:50.

Dude, just stop it. I quoted your post, you must have been editing while I was typing my reply.

Let me point out another instance of your inability to understand people's actual positions and words and how you dishonestly portray what is said.

Your reading dysfunction is showing again Ravi. How you could that conclusion from my post is simply amazing. But oh well. . . .

You "support people being allowed to be who they are" as long as you agree with what they are.
In this case, what they are are bigots that wish to deny one group of people the same rights that another group of people enjoy.

You are showing a pattern here.

So are you...lol

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Dude, just stop it. I quoted your post, you must have been editing while I was typing my reply.

Let me point out another instance of your inability to understand people's actual positions and words and how you dishonestly portray what is said.

You "support people being allowed to be who they are" as long as you agree with what they are.
In this case, what they are are bigots that wish to deny one group of people the same rights that another group of people enjoy.

You are showing a pattern here.

So are you...lol

indeed I am

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes, and to expand on that. . . .

To deny a business license to a corporation who has not or will not adhere to the basic safeguards and zoning requirements or that are deemed to be important to the character of the town is one thing.

To deny a business license to a perfectly acceptable business just because the owner expresses politically incorrect or offensive opinions is quite another.

If the social contract in the community is to disallow strip clubs, tittie bars, or open saloons, well so be it. They aren't condemning or punishing such, they just don't want them in their community and the policy is uniformly applied to all.

Ditto is the policy is to exclude big box stores or even fast food establishments or a policy to require a certain type architecture or restrict signs to a certain height or whatever. So long as nobody's unalienable rights are denied, people should be able to have the sort of community/society they wish to have.

But to deny somebody a business license or attempt to damage their livelihood because they hold an unpopular OPINION, is to deny that somebody their unalienable rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Ravi:
There are at least THREE different levels being supported or oppose
that I would make a distinction between instead of running these together as synonymous.
Otherwise you will argue and argue in circles and not address or resolve anything.

1. "being who you are" as gay or having beliefs X Y or Z etc.
2. "expressing that" in words or statements, as what the company rep stated in words
3. passing "mandatory legislation" that requires consent of the people affected
4. actual actions of people physically which may or may not affect others

We can do 1, 2 and 4 on our own, without necesarily imposing on someone else doing these things.

Where people are imposing or threatening to impose is # 3
trying to pass legislation either all for or all against certain restrictions
on definitions of marriage that affect all people in that state.

I don't see how to do this without a consensus by all people in that state,
where marriage is concerned that involves diverse religious, spiritual and personal beliefs!
Anyone who imposes a law biased ONE way or the OTHER is still imposing on any others
who disagree, so both are equally guilty of threatening to violate religious freedom
if LEGISLATION is pursued that touches this religious issue or conflict over marriage.

Either agree to word the laws so that all sides are satisfied and included equally,
or quit complaining that the laws exclude one view or another.

As for 1 and 2,
you can have your free speech to express how you feel
and still be who you are, and accept how others are and how they express themselves
WITHOUT CONFLICT

If people are getting upset at how other people exercise 2 and 4,
verbal expressions and physical actions, they are most likely PROJECTING
their conflicts and emotions from internally onto the external perceptions
of "what they think the other person is thinking, saying or doing."

Resolve that internal level of conflict first
and the other levels will follow in turn.
If you don't address the internal level, the others will keep going in circles because those are just expressions of the upset feelings and distrust that people may have of each other,
projected back and forth.

The internalized conflicts are necessary to resolve anyway
before attempting to "word" much less "PASS" any legislation concerning marriage laws
or any other issue involving religious views or personal bias based on beliefs.

If you don't trust each other to work things out internally
you will keep arguing over the external conflicts and get nowhere.

 

[Ravi]

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?

 

[Valerie]

Still, those who would protest Chick-fil-a and attempt to disrupt their business because the owner has expressed views they don't like are the intolerant ones. Not Chick-fil-a.

I'd say the truly intolerant ones are the ones who go out of their way to organize and raise Millions of dollars for a discriminatory agenda which is misguided by their Religious zealotry, AS IF their opinions and views of God's impending wrath on our Country on account of a certain particular group of Citizens who seek equal access to a Civil Marriage..as if their views are relevant to American public policies where the Constitutional separation of Church and State is A GIVEN...

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Ravi and Foxfyre:
There are at least THREE different levels being supported or oppose
that I would make a distinction between instead of running these together as synonymous.
Otherwise you will argue and argue in circles and not address or resolve anything.

1. "being who you are" as gay or having beliefs X Y or Z etc.
2. "expressing that" in words or statements, as what the company rep stated in words
3. passing "mandatory legislation" that requires consent of the people affected
4. actual actions of people physically which may or may not affect others

We can do 1, 2 and 4 on our own, without necesarily imposing on someone else doing these things.

Where people are imposing or threatening to impose is # 3
trying to pass legislation either all for or all against certain restrictions
on definitions of marriage that affect all people in that state.

I don't see how to do this without a consensus by all people in that state,
where marriage is concerned that involves diverse religious, spiritual and personal beliefs!
Anyone who imposes a law biased ONE way or the OTHER is still imposing on any others
who disagree, so both are equally guilty of threatening to violate religious freedom
if LEGISLATION is pursued that touches this religious issue or conflict over marriage.

Either agree to word the laws so that all sides are satisfied and included equally,
or quit complaining that the laws exclude one view or another.

As for 1 and 2,
you can have your free speech to express how you feel
and still be who you are, and accept how others are and how they express themselves
WITHOUT CONFLICT

If people are getting upset at how other people exercise 2 and 4,
verbal expressions and physical actions, they are most likely PROJECTING
their conflicts and emotions from internally onto the external perceptions
of "what they think the other person is thinking, saying or doing."

Resolve that internal level of conflict first
and the other levels will follow in turn.
If you don't address the internal level, the others will keep going in circles because those are just expressions of the upset feelings and distrust that people may have of each other,
projected back and forth.

The internalized conflicts are necessary to resolve anyway
before attempting to "word" much less "PASS" any legislation concerning marriage laws
or any other issue involving religious views or personal bias based on beliefs.

If you don't trust each other to work things out internally
you will keep arguing over the external conflicts and get nowhere.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still, those who would protest Chick-fil-a and attempt to disrupt their business because the owner has expressed views they don't like are the intolerant ones. Not Chick-fil-a.

I'd say the truly intolerant ones are the ones who go out of their way to organize and raise Millions of dollars for a discriminatory agenda which is misguided by their Religious zealotry, AS IF their opinions and views of God's impending wrath on our Country on account of a certain particular group of Citizens who seek equal access to a Civil Marriage..as if their views are relevant to American public policies where the Constitutional separation of Church and State is A GIVEN...

You have the same right to raise millions of dollars and try to call down God's wrath to oppose their point of view too.

So long as the business practices are not discriminatory,and there is no evidence that Chick-fil-a practices any discrimination of any kind, we the American people are still entitled to whatever opinions or views we hold no matter what anybody else thinks of them.

If everybody is not afforded that freedom, nobody will be.

 

[BDBoop]

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. Maybe if the Food Bank or VBS handed out a really good chicken sandwich they would be.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That is awesome. And we both actually like it...shocker!