Chik-fil-a controversy

[OutofDate1980]

Invariably it's either biblical (which often brings Leviticus into play which is a thorny bugger to deal with) ...

:rofl:

 

[Rachel A]

Good point. I suppose there are tines for amendment...but when states are outlawing marriage - happiness to those couples...isn't that infringing the basic rights this country was set on?

Could use the 'I don't like or believe it' argument but if that were a basis of law then we'd be locking up the producers of 'Here comes Honey Boo Boo' or those that believed in the flying spaghetti monster...

Actually it might not be such a bad idea to lock up those producers - if anything could be called a crime against humanity...

 

[OutofDate1980]

If Cathy had used the term "Islamic" instead of "Biblical" would that have made a difference in the reaction ?

 

[Rachel A]

If Cathy had used the term "Islamic" instead of "Biblical" would that have made a difference in the reaction ?

Might have gotten a few CFAs burnt down...

 

[Jordan]

I really think we are starting to see a much deeper issue surface in America then just what the CEO of chick fli a said. I really think where at tipping point here in America....(trimmed )..

Sure do agree only to add that I see a big difference between financially supporting pro-gay rights and financially supporting anti-gay agenda. Maybe I misunderstood that portion of your comments.

Supporting anti-rights for a portion of the population that is of a sexual orientation that is a minority and legal (as opposed to a sick sexual orientation such as pedophilia etc which there are laws agains) is just biggotry.

I mean, it's pro-rights as a law abiding American as opposed to anti-rights as a law abiding American; pretty easy to see which is in need of exposing.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The one thing I'd like to clarify is the difference between Jeff Bezos and Dan Cathy. Jeff used his personal money to fund pro-gay rights in Washington. Dan used Chik-Fil-A's corporate money to fund his stuff.

Chick-fil-A is a private corporation. I Googled them and I guess I am correct. So that fact changes your argument. Corporations can use their assets as they see fit if the company is privately held. Much different if the company is public.

I do not know how CFA is structured but the owner's prior deeds, the way he has operated for decades and his views and religous beliefs say this is not just a persom being mean. This is a man with deep religious beliefs.

I use my corporation's cash to fund pleasures that do not further the bottom line. If I were public, it would be different.

 

[Rachel A]

Chick-fil-A is a private corporation. I Googled them and I guess I am correct. So that fact changes your argument. Corporations can use their assets as they see fit if the company is privately held. Much different if the company is public.

I do not know how CFA is structured but the owner's prior deeds, the way he has operated for decades and his views and religous beliefs say this is not just a persom being mean. This is a man with deep religious beliefs.

I use my corporation's cash to fund pleasures that do not further the bottom line. If I were public, it would be different.

Not in the slightest. This has nothing to do with whether they are a public or private corporation. The fact is Dan is using his business to fund (in part) hate groups. His business - not his own personal cash - his business. So a small portion of what folk pay for their chicken-whatever goes to hate organizations.

Like I said earlier, would folk be this vitriolic over this if he ran a healthy salad company?

And you still haven't countered my question : why can't we protest? Why can't we disagree? That's what this is all about. Or are you saying that, as members of a community you, by your own words, do not like have less rights than you?

 

[Rachel A]

Bob,

Perhaps it would help if we isolate your issue with this.

Are you against gay marriage because of biblical or legal reasons? Or are you of the opinion that gays do not have rights? Are you against the LGBT community protesting or them generally? These are honest questions and I'd appreciate honest answers. Perhaps if we can isolate the issue we could hone down to that rather than expanding into all manner of tangents.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Not in the slightest. This has nothing to do with whether they are a public or private corporation. The fact is Dan is using his business to fund (in part) hate groups. His business - not his own personal cash - his business. So a small portion of what folk pay for their chicken-whatever goes to hate organizations.

Like I said earlier, would folk be this vitriolic over this if he ran a healthy salad company?

And you still haven't countered my question : why can't we protest? Why can't we disagree? That's what this is all about. Or are you saying that, as members of a community you, by your own words, do not like have less rights than you?

So what? It is not a public corporation so he is likely free to use his cash as he sees fit. If you do not like it, visit Wendy's.

And you really do not know who he funds, or do you? I am asking if you know. Even if you manage to be accurate, so what? Not your business or my business. Simply avoid the place.

You can certainly protest. That is your absolute right, period. We have always protected unpopular speech so even hate speech is protected. So go right ahead and protest because I do not have a problem with it.

Just let the other side protest as well. Sadly, this is taken to be hate speech by some people on your side. And even more sad is that with the liberal press, we are told how evil we are for not accepting one group or another.

Dan has the right to spend his money as he sees fit. He has the right to his pinion (held by millions of other Americans) and he has a right to say what he wants to say. He is not an evil guy.

 

[HotRoderX]

Sure do agree only to add that I see a big difference between financially supporting pro-gay rights and financially supporting anti-gay agenda. Maybe I misunderstood that portion of your comments.

Supporting anti-rights for a portion of the population that is of a sexual orientation that is a minority and legal (as opposed to a sick sexual orientation such as pedophilia etc which there are laws agains) is just biggotry. (trimmed)

I really do see both points of view on this which I know sounds weird. The way I look at this is we have two sides to this coin.

We have pro gays who feel they have the right to gay unions.
We have anti gay's who feel that gay marriage unions should be illegal.

Both sides think there correct and feel the other is wrong. When this finally is put to a vote on the national level. One side will lose and it will be a mute point for at least a little while.

I feel both sides have the right to fight for there views if there willing to. In a perfect world everyone would coexist and be happy. This has never been the case and I don't see it happening ever.

Helping fund a group that goes into a legal court setting to fight for your views. In my opinion is the best way to handle this type of situation. Ultimately its up to a judge to interpret the laws and constitution to decide if something is legal.

I also am a firm believer that people can do as they please with there money. When we start telling people how they can spend there money and how they can use it we stepped over that fine line.

Please always keep in mind whats racist to one person isn't to another.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Bob,

Perhaps it would help if we isolate your issue with this.

Are you against gay marriage because of biblical or legal reasons? Or are you of the opinion that gays do not have rights? Are you against the LGBT community protesting or them generally? These are honest questions and I'd appreciate honest answers. Perhaps if we can isolate the issue we could hone down to that rather than expanding into all manner of tangents.

I am against it because it is not right. It flies in the face of a time honored tradition and most people seem to be against it because of their religious beliefs or they simply believe as I do, that marriage is between woman and man.

If two people of the same sex want a legally defined relationship, they have options and I have zero problems just as long as they do not call it a marriage. If the laws must change to afford gay people that choose a union the same rights straight married people are afforded, no problems here.

You think I hate gay people because I support Chick-fil-A. Not true. I just agree with Dan's position as do millions of other people that likely do not hate gays, but hate that they would call their blessed event a wedding.

The LGBT community is free to protest. But so am I. But I do not protest issues like this. When asked, I state my views and let it go at that. It has nothing to do with hate and I do not want to see those folks hurt, beat up or killed. I just want them to use the term married.

They can get together and form some other legal structure and I do not have a problem with that one blessed bit.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I really do see both points of view on this which I know sounds weird. The way I look at this is we have two sides to this coin.

We have pro gays who feel they have the right to gay unions.
We have anti gay's who feel that gay marriage unions should be illegal.

You forgot the third side; people like me who could care less if two gay people want some legal union and resent it being called a marriage.

 

[EarlyMon]

Are you against gay marriage because of biblical or legal reasons?

With all due respect, was I unclear when I specified that the thread was reopened for a political discussion?

Asking and re-opening the issues of religion here is going turn south, it does each and every time, then feelings will be hurt and the thread will lock for the last time.

Sounds like you two are enjoying some discussion on this - please continue it via private messages.

Cheers, thanks.

PS - in case there is any doubt by any party about moderator resolve on this - don't go there. This is the final word on this area, no one gets to continue talking over me on this without an infraction.

Sorry, but it's for the greater good of the members here. Nothing personal.

 

[RazorSharp]

<redacted, sorry Early>

 

[OutofDate1980]

... If two people of the same sex want a legally defined relationship, they have options and I have zero problems just as long as they do not call it a marriage. ...

The difference between gay and straight citizens that is the basis for the government to deny the former the right to enter into a legal contract of marriage is ?

 

[Hashtag]

These arguments are better than facebook fights, because this sites general population is more intelligent that facebooks.

 

[A.Nonymous]

As shocking as it may sound, being Christian and supporting gay marriage is not necessarily exclusive.

A fair enough point. Still, what the guy said wasn't particularly shocking given who it's coming from.

At the end of the day why are people so against the LGBT community from boycotting CFA? He said and did something we don't like, we don't eat there as a result. Is that really so bad, so evil, so wrong? Folk can boycott McD's because they don't like the golden arches if they want to. Who are we hurting by boycotting? Has our boycott prevented supporters from eating there? The exact opposite I'd say.

Or is this simply a 'hands off our chicken' mentality? Would folk have such a visceral reaction if he only sold healthy salads?

I have no issue with any community boycotting any business for any reason. Some boycotts are sillier than others. Personally, I think it's silly to boycott CFA over this as you have no chance of changing the CEOs mind. But that's irrelevant really. My issue is people calling for government sponsored censorship because they disagree with the guys views.

 

[Hashtag]

I find it funny that the main portion of this forum is dedicated to freeing out phones and being able to do whatever we'd like,but when it comes to marriage half of the members think there need to be strict restraints.

 

[Rachel A]

So what? It is not a public corporation so he is likely free to use his cash as he sees fit. If you do not like it, visit Wendy's.

And you really do not know who he funds, or do you? I am asking if you know. Even if you manage to be accurate, so what? Not your business or my business. Simply avoid the place.

You can certainly protest. That is your absolute right, period. We have always protected unpopular speech so even hate speech is protected. So go right ahead and protest because I do not have a problem with it.

Just let the other side protest as well. Sadly, this is taken to be hate speech by some people on your side. And even more sad is that with the liberal press, we are told how evil we are for not accepting one group or another.

Dan has the right to spend his money as he sees fit. He has the right to his pinion (held by millions of other Americans) and he has a right to say what he wants to say. He is not an evil guy.

The donations can be found in the tax forms filed with the IRS - so yes they I do know, down to the last buck.

The LGBT community does not want to remove anyone's rights. Can't say the same for the other lot.

I am against it because it is not right. It flies in the face of a time honored tradition and most people seem to be against it because of their religious beliefs or they simply believe as I do, that marriage is between woman and man.I'm sure
If two people of the same sex want a legally defined relationship, they have options and I have zero problems just as long as they do not call it a marriage. If the laws must change to afford gay people that choose a union the same rights straight married people are afforded, no problems here.

You think I hate gay people because I support Chick-fil-A. Not true. I just agree with Dan's position as do millions of other people that likely do not hate gays, but hate that they would call their blessed event a wedding.

The LGBT community is free to protest. But so am I. But I do not protest issues like this. When asked, I state my views and let it go at that. It has nothing to do with hate and I do not want to see those folks hurt, beat up or killed. I just want them to use the term married.

They can get together and form some other legal structure and I do not have a problem with that one blessed bit.

You say gay people have options - you're wrong. By and large they don't. Even the States that permit marriage it is only on the state level. There are over a thousand federal benefits which are denied to them.

In fact many states have gone so far as to prohibit any sort of civil union. This even effects heterosexual couples. A fair chunk of the money given by Dan is used to fight these rights. It is even used to deny gays any rights.

You talk about marriage being a time honored tradition. For thousands of years slavery was a time honored tradition - it's even condoned in the Bible. It took a civil war in the US to change that.

You may not like the word marriage in this context - others hate it even more. There are people opposed to calling Creationism a science but we let it happen nonetheless. On the other hand many gays hate the term 'civil union'.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. The plain fact of the matter is that the moment who have to make constitutional changes to prevent something is when you know the rights were there to begin with.

So, we protest.

 

[A.Nonymous]

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.

 

[Rachel A]

I find it funny that the main portion of this forum is dedicated to freeing out phones and being able to do whatever we'd like,but when it comes to marriage half of the members think there need to be strict restraints.

:thumbup:

These arguments are better than facebook fights, because this sites general population is more intelligent that facebooks.

That and the mods to an excellent job of keeping it reasonable.

Personally considering the subject matter I'm myself pleased that we are keeping it so civil. I may not agree with Bob on this issue but cannot deny that the conversation hasn't been spirited!

 

[Rachel A]

A fair enough point. Still, what the guy said wasn't particularly shocking given who it's coming from.



I have no issue with any community boycotting any business for any reason. Some boycotts are sillier than others. Personally, I think it's silly to boycott CFA over this as you have no chance of changing the CEOs mind. But that's irrelevant really. My issue is people calling for government sponsored censorship because they disagree with the guys views.

This isn't so much of changing Dan's mind here. It's more used as a symbolic gesture. The community needed to highlight what they saw as an injustice when Dan clarified his position and used it as a rallying point.

And I agree with you on your last point. He should be fought with viewpoints but not with censorship. That's a dark road to start out on.

 

[Rachel A]

With all due respect, was I unclear when I specified that the thread was reopened for a political discussion?

Asking and re-opening the issues of religion here is going turn south, it does each and every time, then feelings will be hurt and the thread will lock for the last time.

Sounds like you two are enjoying some discussion on this - please continue it via private messages.

Cheers, thanks.

PS - in case there is any doubt by any party about moderator resolve on this - don't go there. This is the final word on this area, no one gets to continue talking over me on this without an infraction.

Sorry, but it's for the greater good of the members here. Nothing personal.

Oops

Sorry!

 

[copestag]

Do you also favor bringing back "time honored traditions" such as polygamy, incest, ......

funny that you would be in favor of gay marriage...... but dont believe polygamy or incest should be legal?

why shouldnt they as opposed to gay marriage?

why should we infringe upon their "rights"?

I think we should seek out and celebrate our incestual polygamist lgbt families...... oh ya and we should allow them to get married for attention and acceptance.

 

[bubkusjones]

Curious what you all think about it. Personally I think it's a bit BS. The owner states an opinion that is obviously unpopular. The fact that officials in three different cities are moving to block them from building new restaurants is completely ridiculous. I guess we don't have freedom of speech in this country any more if our speech is unpopular.

How is it ridiculous? Why is it OK for Mr Chik-Fil-A to voice his support against Gay Marriage, but it's somehow taboo for a city official to voice his support against Chik-Fil-A?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

I am against it because it is not right. It flies in the face of a time honored tradition and most people seem to be against it because of their religious beliefs or they simply believe as I do, that marriage is between woman and man.

Traditionally, white people kept slaves. Traditionally, women weren't allowed to work. Traditionally, certain cultures performed body mutilation in an attempt to enforce religious beliefs.

Just because something is a tradition isn't a good reason to keep doing it.

If two people of the same sex want a legally defined relationship, they have options and I have zero problems just as long as they do not call it a marriage. If the laws must change to afford gay people that choose a union the same rights straight married people are afforded, no problems here.

Currently, they have no options that offer the same legal protections and rights as a marriage. Yes, they can get some through other legal means, but that usually involves lengthy sessions with a lawyer ($$$) and whatever they end up with is much easier to contest in court.

Nothing available to gay couples is as binding or legally iron-clad as a marriage. Yeah, you could create a separate-but-identical union for gay couples, but why, when there's a perfectly good legal status ready to go. It's probably a LOT easier (legally and financially) to change the definition of marriage to include gay couples than it is to create a new union for them. Not to mention then it'd have to go through the courts and all that crap.

The LGBT community is free to protest. But so am I. But I do not protest issues like this. When asked, I state my views and let it go at that. It has nothing to do with hate and I do not want to see those folks hurt, beat up or killed. I just want them to use the term married.

They can get together and form some other legal structure and I do not have a problem with that one blessed bit.

Again, I ask, why? What's so sacred about the word "marriage" and why does what someone else use it for affect what you use it for?

It's not about your religion, or your personal beliefs, or changing YOUR marriage. It's about gay couples and their seeking the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as everyone else. It's a legal matter, and quite frankly, religious reasons should stay the hell out of it.