Chik-fil-a controversy

Rachel A · Aug 11, 2012

Think I'm about done here. I know I'm very passionate about the subject and I sense Bob is too. I feel, at least on my side, that I've said all I can say without invoking a lightening bolt from on high (yeah Early, I'm looking at you

) so I'm gonna withdraw from here before I get kicked out!

Thanks to everyone for an interesting conversation.

OutofDate1980 · Aug 11, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
Also, for the record, the 57% or so of Facebook that Zuck owns is voting stock. So essentially, he can do whatever he pleases. The board may have to approve any action, but he has 57% so every single one of them can team up against them and he still out votes them.

No, the 43% minority stock holders will sue and win for any money spent that doesn't benefit the public company as a whole.

Rxpert83 · Aug 11, 2012

Rachel_Ambler said:
Think I'm about done here. I know I'm very passionate about the subject and I sense Bob is too. I feel, at least on my side, that I've said all I can say without invoking a lightening bolt from on high (yeah Early, I'm looking at you ) so I'm gonna withdraw from here before I get kicked out!

Thanks to everyone for an interesting conversation.

Sometimes you have to just respectfully agree to disagree.

EarlyMon · Aug 11, 2012

Temporary thread lock while it sinks in that I was dead serious about no further questions on religious beliefs.

EarlyMon · Aug 13, 2012

Ok, I tried to be gentle in my edits so that the debate wouldn't get watered down.

Typically, some people (reading and lurking or writing here, I'm not calling names) often get confused that I'm censoring capriciously.

Here's that First Amendment -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We're not Congress, we're just a private phone forum with some rules about not getting into waters where feelings can be hurt.

Can't yell fire in crowded theater in the USA, and can't start blurring religious beliefs with this issue in this thread.

Please don't assume others religious beliefs, please don't ask about them, please don't use them for straw-man arguments or any other portion of the debate.

We're all complex beings. I've no doubt that religious beliefs can be at heart for many interested here.

I've also no doubt that we're all complex enough to debate here within the reasonable constraints we're setting.

No one is penalized for their beliefs here. But if the language gets harsh, or crosses the boundaries set, we'll either have to close this for good and/or take further corrective actions.

And if I missed a religious remark here or there, please just take it in a friendly way - this is a complex thread because there are complex issues, so I tried to be light with the edits, trusting that everyone will understand -

Just because I missed something earlier, doesn't mean that it's still ok to talk about if it's beyond the constraint we've requested here.

And .... we're open!

copestag · Aug 13, 2012

My suggestion would be to lock the thread for good.

While your sentiment in limiting a heated argument over religion may come with the best of intentions..... the entire topic is based on a religious point of view.

One side has their opinion based on a desire to be granted 'rights'..... the other side is ALL about religious and moral belief.

Not to mention the entire controversy is based on the religious belief of Dan Cathy.

So your theory is for those in favor of gay marriage to speak their mind and those opposed to remain silent and be told their opinions should not be spoken.

Lock the thread.

Bob Maxey · Aug 13, 2012

copestag said:
My suggestion would be to lock the thread for good.

While your sentiment in limiting a heated argument over religion may come with the best of intentions..... the entire topic is based on a religious point of view.

One side has their opinion based on a desire to be granted 'rights'..... the other side is ALL about religious and moral belief.

Not to mention the entire controversy is based on the religious belief of Dan Cathy.

So your theory is for those in favor of gay marriage to speak their mind and those opposed to remain silent and be told their opinions should not be spoken.

Lock the thread.

I probably tend to perhaps maybe or may not agree. One cannot separate the chicken seller's views from gay rights, political correctness and the like because his comments involve many issues.

You cannot allow one side to dominate at the expense of the other side. I mean, come on, who do you think you are, Apple?

Smiley

You cannot discuss gay rights without the bible because many people against gay people use the bible as their SME. Morality is an issue because some people think the gay lifestyle is immoral. Business is an issue because this man told us his views and now he suffers. Well, until next week when we all forget about it.

And besides, this entire issue will never go away.

I say do it, Early. Come on . . . I know you can do it. Push that button.

A.Nonymous · Aug 13, 2012

My entire goal in opening this thread in the first place was to discuss the freedom of speech issue. Apparently that's not relevant. I guess if your opinion is determined to be incorrect, your first amendment rights are therefore null and void. So we must determine which view is correct first and we cannot do that without at least bringing the religious element into the discussion. Since we can't for obvious reasons, then the thread should indeed be locked.

EarlyMon · Aug 13, 2012

copestag said:
So your theory is for those in favor of gay marriage to speak their mind and those opposed to remain silent and be told their opinions should not be spoken.

Not my theory at all, honestly.

Several have asked to have the thread open to discuss political reactions to all this as well as the media.

And it's quite possible for either side to try browbeat the other using morality or religion when discussing gay marriage.

It's possible to discuss the same thing without browbeating, isn't it??

That's my theory.

If I'm wrong, no one will post here and the thread can die a natural death.

A.Nonymous said:
My entire goal in opening this thread in the first place was to discuss the freedom of speech issue. Apparently that's not relevant. I guess if your opinion is determined to be incorrect, your first amendment rights are therefore null and void. So we must determine which view is correct first and we cannot do that without at least bringing the religious element into the discussion. Since we can't for obvious reasons, then the thread should indeed be locked.

Please. Exactly what I didn't say.

You want to discuss freedom of speech - fine. I've yet to see you asking anyone about their religious beliefs and berating them for it. I've yet to edit or delete one of your posts.

I apologize if I'm unable to communicate clearly on this.

Just asking for all future parties to stop calling each other out for a showdown using religion.

Because it seems that for some people, when they get frustrated arguing the issues of free speech and politics, then they try to escalate the battle to an area where there's an easy win - religion.

Because no one can argue against religion - except - then they do.

So please - that's way different that approving ideas.

It's simply disapproving certain tactics that can be unfair in a debate such as this.

Ok?

Prinny · Aug 13, 2012

Well, I'm gonna put my two cents in before the thread gets locked.

Not EVERYONE who is against gay marriage, is against it for religious purposes. I'm not going to get into that topic, because people will be offended, especially by what I think.

Regardless. Some people say gay marriage is unconstitutional, or immoral, or "plain wrong."

I'm personally for it, because it doesn't bother me one way or another. It doesn't directly effect me.

Just saying.

OutofDate1980 · Aug 13, 2012

The "gay" issue is one of these culture war things. The government has no compelling reason to deny two adults to enter a legal contract of marriage.

Many folks see homosexuality, pre-marital sex, divorce, sex outside of the purpose of procreation, etc, to be immoral based on religious belief. It's not the government's role to codify those beliefs.

Too rephrase an earlier post, if Cathy had used the term Shia instead of Biblical, public reaction would have differed even though both belief systems agree on the issue.

Cathy, who is the public figure for Chick-Fil-A entered the public arena and funded groups to have the government to codify and/or retain laws that support his religious beliefs, all within his rights.

For the same reasons that governments restrict adult entertainment business, i.e. public outcry, traffic congestion, need for increased law enforcement, etc, can be used to restrict Chick-Fil-A locations. It's not a free speech issue, but a cost issue. Both types of business have a right to seek relief from the courts on any restrictions.

Cathy has realized this reality and has avowed to refrain from further publicity on this issue. He didn't claim he wouldn't continue to fund those groups that further his beliefs.

ylexot · Aug 13, 2012

And I'll just throw out a third option...stop licensing marriage. It is unnecessary.

A.Nonymous · Aug 13, 2012

ylexot said:
And I'll just throw out a third option...stop licensing marriage. It is unnecessary.

I'll give you props for that. In this whole debate I've never ever heard anyone bring up that suggestion but it makes a whole lot of sense. Leave marriage in the hands of the churches and get the state out of it. I've got no problems with that. The only hitch is the legalities that come with it. If you die and I come along and claim that I'm your spouse can I get everything you own? What if I find a crooked priest/pastor/clergyman who is going to split your estate with me and he vouches for the fact that we really were married in the sight of Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is that valid?

ylexot · Aug 14, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
I'll give you props for that. In this whole debate I've never ever heard anyone bring up that suggestion but it makes a whole lot of sense. Leave marriage in the hands of the churches and get the state out of it. I've got no problems with that. The only hitch is the legalities that come with it. If you die and I come along and claim that I'm your spouse can I get everything you own? What if I find a crooked priest/pastor/clergyman who is going to split your estate with me and he vouches for the fact that we really were married in the sight of Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is that valid?

Easily overcome by a legal contract between two consenting adults. No government involvement necessary unless there is a breach of contract.

A.Nonymous · Aug 14, 2012

ylexot said:
Easily overcome by a legal contract between two consenting adults. No government involvement necessary unless there is a breach of contract.

In the eyes of the law, that's all a marriage is.

Jordan · Aug 14, 2012

I don't see a problem with needing a marriage license. They just need to allow them for gay people too. I think this is one of the issues that makes the different states look strange or fascist or whatever and so it needs federal oversight like some other things we are used to having like driver licenses and aviation licenses even though those aren't federal per se there is federal regulation.

What I mean is, regulation in the sense of fairness for all couples who are adults and not blood related and no matter their sex.

cjr72 · Aug 14, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
In the eyes of the law, that's all a marriage is.

Except the necessity of acquiring a marriage license interjects a third party regardless of whether or not there is a breach of contract down the road.

ylexot · Aug 14, 2012

cjr72 said:
Except the necessity of acquiring a marriage license interjects a third party regardless of whether or not there is a breach of contract down the road.

BINGO!

ylexot · Aug 14, 2012

Jordan said:
I don't see a problem with needing a marriage license. They just need to allow them for gay people too. I think this is one of the issues that makes the different states look strange or fascist or whatever and so it needs federal oversight like some other things we are used to having like driver licenses and aviation licenses even though those aren't federal per se there is federal regulation.

What I mean is, regulation in the sense of fairness for all couples who are adults and not blood related and no matter their sex.

The problem is that it allows the government to choose what is acceptable for a marriage...which is the crux of this issue. The government does not need that power, but because they have that power, they have (as usual) screwed it up.

cjr72 · Aug 14, 2012

ylexot said:
The problem is that it allows the government to choose what is acceptable for a marriage...

...and what isn't acceptable for marriage. It bears repeating that many states in the US only came by the necessity of acquiring a license to ban interracial marriage.

Jordan · Aug 14, 2012

cjr72 said:
...and what isn't acceptable for marriage. It bears repeating that many states in the US only came by the necessity of acquiring a license to ban interracial marriage.

Well it is being turned around on them.

The license thing also used to have to do with blood relatives and with kids too young (needed), as well as other things. But the government bent to realistic pressure and now the race and gender things are seen as biggotry which they are.

There are a few things the government is needed for and to allow gay marriage is one in my opinion. Many other things it is involved in are stupid and from lobbyists and insurance companies etc by the thousands but that does not mean we can't as people force the laws in favor of something very similar to the race thing being lifted this time sex orientation.

cjr72 · Aug 14, 2012

Jordan said:
Well it is being turned around on them. The license thing also used to have to do with blood relatives and with kids too young (needed), as well as other things. But the government bent to realistic pressure and now the race and gender things are seen as biggotry which they are.

There are a few things the government is needed for and to allow gay marriage is one in my opinion. Many other things it is involved in are stupid and from lobbyists and insurance companies etc by the thousands but that does not mean we can't as people force the laws in favor of something very similar to the race thing being lifted this time sex orientation.

Well to me what it boils down to is should we try to constantly tinker with and fix what has needlessly created these problems in the first place, or do away with the source of the problem? My vote is for the latter.

Jordan · Aug 14, 2012

cjr72 said:
Well to me what it boils down to is should we try to constantly tinker with and fix what has needlessly created these problems in the first place, or do away with the source of the problem? My vote is for the latter.

Well the constantly tinker part is what the country was started for instead of being like the kingdoms back then almost non pliable almost impossible to change without revolution.

Chik-fil-a controversy

Android Expert

Android Expert

Dr. Feelgood

The PearlyMon

The PearlyMon

Android Expert

Android Expert

Extreme Android User

The PearlyMon

Resident Linux Nutcase

Android Expert

Android Expert

Extreme Android User

Android Expert

Extreme Android User

Member

Android Enthusiast

Android Expert

Android Expert

Android Enthusiast

Member

Android Enthusiast

Member

BEST TECH IN 2023

Smartphones

Best Android Phones

Upcoming

Best iPhones

Upcoming

Tablets

Best Tablets

Upcoming

Laptops

Best Laptops

Upcoming

Televisions

Best TVs

Upcoming

Game Consoles

Best Game Consoles

Upcoming

Wearables

Best Wearables

Upcoming

Smart Home

Smart Home Tech

Upcoming

Similar threads