|
On July 28 2012 03:32 bITt.mAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 00:34 Felnarion wrote:
The youth of this country have far, far too little understand of freedom of speech and its concepts.
Freedom of speech exists so society can change, evolve, and adopt new principles and ideas as time goes on. Without it, your ideas about gay-equality would NEVER get off the ground.
There is no logic that allows you to silence a company whose beliefs are that gays should not marry that does not allow another city to silence someone who believes they should.
You have to keep in mind that the same logic you are currently using to silence old ideas can just as easily be used to silence new ones. These days, its a majority opinion that gays should have some form of marriage or union available to them. However, it hasn't always been. In fact, it was a very rarely held opinion at one time. The same rules you're pretending exist to silence Chick Fil A, could just as easily silence YOU.
The PURPOSE of freedom of speech is to allow ideas to circulate freely, so that society can decide upon their merits. The purpose of freedom of speech is not to allow you to shit all over anyone who is wrong and then make them shut up by taking away their business.
You have to allow people who are wrong to be wrong. You have to allow it. If you don't, if you refuse this, then the people who hold the ideas that are wrong can silence you before you even challenge them. Those who hold the idea that gay marriage is wrong could have, in the past, kept your pro-gay businesses out of towns. They could have destroyed companies and people. But free speech protected you.
When I say "allow" I mean on a governmental level. You should personally tell them how wrong they are, repeatedly, and convince them of it. But on a societal, governmental, level...You can't just tell them they can't speak. That's a fast train to a stagnate, immoral, society. Read this, guys. The hypocrisy is quite ironic. 1) Calling out the majority (on here, in society, and the media) Mainstream new young wishy-washy liberal doctrine is the overwhelming majority in young internet users - go figre, it's the moral system schools, society and the media have taught them (family, I don't know but porbably too). They are taught that "everything is ok or something like that and, like, people should be free to do whatever they want". I'm being deliberately vague to make the point that there are very few clearly defined moral lines, and even those are quite hazy. Then another one is "freedom of speech beyond all else", typical liberal fun-fun, you know how they do. The liberal 'free-thinkers' or whatever crown they want to give themselves, actually generally all think in the same way; watered down secular politically-correct post-modern pop-culture-philosophy. + Show Spoiler [spite] +Nice, very origional, now what does that mean about how you should live your life? Why exactly do you believe that? Have you ever considered anything else than your inherent world-view is 'true'? [OH no not TRUTH CLAIMS *shudders*] If you don't have a realisitc grasp of the flaws of your own paradigms, are you really as open-minded as you laud yourself to be? It gets funny when there are people who disagree with some Liberal doctrine (and haven't yet been yelled into submission). Because while the liberals have been raised on their bread and butter of 'freedom-of-speach' since day one, as soon as someone disagrees with their moral views, they go apeshit, throw a tantrum, and chuck their opponent's freedom of speech out the window. Since its no wonder they are a majority (see prior indoctrination), their moral views are generally imposed on the minority. That IS NOT freedom of speech. So you, dear reader, please try to recognize when you act that way, and stop to consider if it's really right. It quickly devolves into a bickering match, whereas true freedom of speech would at least have some mutual respect. Another thing. When you dissolve certain moral boundaries (say, in the sub-category of 'consenting adult sex'), you've dissolved moral boundaries! If you are turly fair and liberal, how then can you go back and be strict on some moral boundaries? That's not very self-consistent dear. 2) Chick-Fil-A vs Government So the new thing is Gay marraige. Ok, there are some people who say (in a range of ways and to various extents) effectively "you shouldn't do that", Chich-Fil-A for one. The point of freedom of speech (yeah, it's lost the capitalization) is that you are free to agree or disagree with this stance, and you are allowed to voice it. True freedom of speech would be fighting FOR your opponent's right to voice his opinion, to debate openly with mutual boundaries and respect, and at all costs NOT silence the minority! Its a question if liberal doctrine really IS the majority, or only that its opponents have been crushed into submission... Back to the topic (note, staying on topic, take a hint some of you), the mayor was wrong to publically discriminate against the private company. Although he may disagree with them, as do the vast majority of his supporters (can't say the same with absolute certainty about all the citizens of his city), he over-steped his boundaries. The system works that if you disagree with the operations or stance of a company, you boycott that company. And surely, with a position like that, Chick-Fil-A will lose more and more customers in Liberal City. Certainly the mayor wouldn't shop there either! But by putting out a regional governmental mandate against the company, he is using his power to amplify the strength of his personal boycott and effectivley boycotting it on behalf of his whole city. That's discriminating against the people in Boston who would still want to consume whatever fast food Chick-Fil-A provides. Is Chick-Fil-A's action illegal? Not yet, thankfully, so as long as they are within the law, what mandate do government officials have to ban them? Seeing how hypocritical the majority is, tragically I believe some day it will be illegal to pull what Chick-Fil-A's up to (freedom of speech say whaaaat). 3) Disclaimer Clauses Since this is General, and General is shitty nowadays, I know lots of people will pick at little subsets of what I've posted, diluting and derailing the thread, rather than discussing the hypocrasy of Liberal governments and their followers. That, and multiple personal attacks, demeaning and dismissive comments, bigotry and denial. Nice freedom of speech, guys. Very mature. Its obvious to expect flack when you disagree with the majority, especially when you challenge and doubt their fundamental world view and moral system. No shit, I've only put the contrarian side of the argument out there to illicit a better reaction. So if you're mature, you'll notice that (!) (and take it into account). This applies to all discussion: pick at people's reasoning, logic, and consistency, and demonstrate flaws. Please not head-buts or outright dismissal. My family have been Democrat voters for as long as we know, even helping extend Democrats abroad to another country, and were I in the States I'd vote for Obama. Sufficient credentials? Note, however, that doesn't mean I subscribe to everything 'Liberal', and I am quite frustrated with liberals giving us a bad name. Except, well, they're such a majority on the internet that its pretty staunchly bi-partisan.
I'm at a loss for your writing style, as well as your complaint of hypocrisy toward me.
|
On July 28 2012 03:56 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:30 Ryalnos wrote:On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked. Why are men's and women's restrooms still 'separate but equal'? NOTE I am not using this as an argument, just as an example of a different use of the term. The concept of'separate but equal' is very strongly tied in the American mind to the issues of segregation. I of course understand that given how 'equal' the separate treatment of blacks & whites was (with all the widespread negative discrimination) there would be a real worry that this is a similar atmosphere prone to similar abuses. i asked a feminist this once - her answer (which i felt was adequate) is in spoiler + Show Spoiler +They are not comparable. For one, the separate bathrooms and schools were far worse for black people. I have not heard of any visible contrast in quality in regards to bathrooms for men or women. They were also institutionally separated from whites, through jobs, income, and livelihood. The fights for the same fountain/bathrooms was part of a larger battle to fight racism overall. "Separate but equal" was an excuse, when the reality was "Keep the icky black people away from us!" The same is not true for women bathrooms. I think it is far more likely for men to want to see women while they are in the bathroom, not the other way around.
It is also wrong to equate gender relations with race relations. I think you will find the majority of women aren't comfortable going to the bathroom with men, or changing clothes with men in public, or bathing, etc. This is because society is sexually charged, and until women feel SAFE, the idea of having unisex locker rooms aren't going to happen. Please look up Rape Culture if you want to understand more of what I'm talking about.
One other thing to be considered is that women aren't arguing for non-separate bathrooms. Until that happens I don't feel it should be up for debate, because it should be about how the affected party feels, not what other people think they should feel about it. And what we feel is that we like our own bathrooms, thank you very much.
I don't believe feminism is about everybody being equal, but everybody having equal opportunities. This does not mean that both genders must do or have the same thing, but that both genders are free to do what they want without suffering from societal expectations. Men should be able to be house husbands and not be made fun of. Women should be able to give sexual favors freely without being slut shamed.
That said, I don't mind unisex bathrooms. They do exist. And when a place has them, I use it.
I see you used a spoiler, which indicates that you're adding additional opinion which tangents from the discussion. It was interesting to see the point she made, and I agree.
So long as it's clear that I'm only arguing that 'separate but equal' CAN have an application which is taken to be acceptable... a point which I'm realizing is probably useless in the informal argumentation format of an internet forum, ah-haha.
EDIT: To avoid double posting, Felnarion - I was confused as well until I realized he basically meant:
"Hey guys, there's a lot of hypocrisy floating around. Refer to these excellent points by Felnarion which I would like to highlight and elaborate on."
|
On July 26 2012 05:57 Edahspmal wrote:The mayor want's to keep Chic-Fil-A out of his city because he got his jimmies rustled by a comment on gay marriage? Seems silly. I think a better solution is to grow some thicker skin, and continue to enjoy the best fast food chain. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
This thought police crap has to end. This
Agree, capitalism deal with it like personal opinion won't and shouldn't interfere with the businesses ability to expand.
|
On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too.
That's a no true scotsman fallacy. You're not a true christian according to the more crazy ones, that's not useful.
It's easy to make yourself look good if you deny that there are bad apples in your camp. But no, bad Christians exist, good Christians exist, you don't get to pick and choose which ones are Christians - they believe in your God and interpret the scripture in their own way. And sometimes, that means hatred of gay people. That's just how it is.
|
i havent been following this thread, but have read the news. have people already discussed that "banning" chick-fil-a from Boston based on the comments concerning gay marriage would be unconstitutional--likely a violation of free speech (which applies to corporations in the U.S.) and freedom of religion, including church-state separation?
|
On July 28 2012 04:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
i havent been following this thread, but have read the news. have people already discussed that "banning" chick-fil-a from Boston based on the comments concerning gay marriage would be unconstitutional--likely a violation of free speech (which applies to corporations in the U.S.) and freedom of religion, including church-state separation?
The mayor's already backed away from his threat, precisely because it won't stand up in court.
Good politics does not necessarily mean getting things done, though.
|
On July 28 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked. Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion. The first amendment grants "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Free exercise thereof allows for religions to follow their beliefs towards marriage. No, marriage in a religious building conducted by a religious official is associated with religion. That does not mean that all marriages are religious or that all marriages need to be conducted by a priest or that everything a priest touches is religious. If an atheist couple wish to marry in a church because of the cultural heritage of hundreds of years of church marriages then that doesn't mean they have a religious marriage, it just means that they like church weddings. God doesn't personally sign every marriage license, they go ahead with or without his blessing.
Church/Priest/(insert religion) {Pardon my bolding}. Your first sentence is reinforcing my point. Atheism is handled in the bible differently then homosexuality, it's comparing apples and oranges. When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest it gains a religious stamp. If you want a non-religious, domestic partnerships is what the state has deemed the equivalent.
On July 28 2012 04:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
i havent been following this thread, but have read the news. have people already discussed that "banning" chick-fil-a from Boston based on the comments concerning gay marriage would be unconstitutional--likely a violation of free speech (which applies to corporations in the U.S.) and freedom of religion, including church-state separation?
It was a political move to arouse the gay community to support him. I can only assume it is near election season (Note: Obama has done the same thing in announcing his support of gay marriage). It's all politically motivated, I doubt the mayor of Boston even thought that it was legal to ban Chic-Fil-A.
|
Whether or not he should be able to do this. I don't think Boston or the mayor have anything to worry about as Chick-Fil-A setting up a franchise in Boston would be business suicide given the culture of the city. He is being excessive.
|
On July 28 2012 04:42 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
i havent been following this thread, but have read the news. have people already discussed that "banning" chick-fil-a from Boston based on the comments concerning gay marriage would be unconstitutional--likely a violation of free speech (which applies to corporations in the U.S.) and freedom of religion, including church-state separation? The mayor's already backed away from his threat, precisely because it won't stand up in court. Good politics does not necessarily mean getting things done, though.
blowhard politicians as usual. its amazing to me that politicians make statements that clearly violate the law and act like they are in the right.
|
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur.
Honestly, most of the people I find against this type of activism against Chik-Fil-A are, ironicly, also Ron Paul supporters. For a man who says that there shouldn't be laws that enforce social equality (ala no "coloreds only" water fountains), and that the open market will regulate itself through people not shopping at a discriminatory establishment, his party really seems to hate it when exactly that happens.
Oh, and the Mayor is totally within his rights to declare such a thing. He is the popularly elected leader of the town. And in America at least, that's become to mean enforcing the morals, both legal and ethical, that the town wants enforced. That's why the President is always rushing to promise he's Christian. People simply won't elect a non-Christian president because they want that style of morals enforced.
Basically, it boils down to this. While the Supreme Court has ruled that businesses are people (like that wasn't an obvious example of lobbyist/political corruption), that doesn't mean that businesses have an inalienable right to be somewhere. If Boston/Chicago don't want a business, they shouldn't have to suffer it's presence.
|
On July 28 2012 04:54 Mauldo wrote:
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur.
Please provide sources on this; arguments so far have revolved around the idea that CFA company policy does not discriminate against gays, but that the objection is to which organizations they give money to. I would be quite surprised if this were provably true and had not been brought up yet in this thread. By the rest of your post I am guessing you made a leap/assumption based on ignorance.
|
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur.
What are you saying? That Chick-Fil-A discriminates against gap people and has discriminatory hiring practices?
Honestly, most of the people I find against this type of activism against Chik-Fil-A are, ironicly, also Ron Paul supporters. For a man who says that there shouldn't be laws that enforce social equality (ala no "coloreds only" water fountains), and that the open market will regulate itself through people not shopping at a discriminatory establishment, his party really seems to hate it when exactly that happens.
What type of activism? Customers boycotting the restaurant? How many people have you found that are against boycotts and are also Ron Paul supporters?
Oh, and the Mayor is totally within his rights to declare such a thing. He is the popularly elected leader of the town. And in America at least, that's become to mean enforcing the morals, both legal and ethical, that the town wants enforced. That's why the President is always rushing to promise he's Christian. People simply won't elect a non-Christian president because they want that style of morals enforced.
I don't know what your example of presidents being Christian has to do with this, but no matter how much of a majority a leader has behind him, he can't just do what he and his majority want.
Basically, it boils down to this. While the Supreme Court has ruled that businesses are people (like that wasn't an obvious example of lobbyist/political corruption)
Don't be ridiculous.
that doesn't mean that businesses have an inalienable right to be somewhere. If Boston/Chicago don't want a business, they shouldn't have to suffer it's presence.
If the people of Boston and Chicago don't want to eat at Chick-fil-A, they can exercise that right by not eating at Chick-fil-A. It's that simple.
|
On July 28 2012 04:54 Mauldo wrote:
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur.
Honestly, most of the people I find against this type of activism against Chik-Fil-A are, ironicly, also Ron Paul supporters. For a man who says that there shouldn't be laws that enforce social equality (ala no "coloreds only" water fountains), and that the open market will regulate itself through people not shopping at a discriminatory establishment, his party really seems to hate it when exactly that happens.
Oh, and the Mayor is totally within his rights to declare such a thing. He is the popularly elected leader of the town. And in America at least, that's become to mean enforcing the morals, both legal and ethical, that the town wants enforced. That's why the President is always rushing to promise he's Christian. People simply won't elect a non-Christian president because they want that style of morals enforced.
Basically, it boils down to this. While the Supreme Court has ruled that businesses are people (like that wasn't an obvious example of lobbyist/political corruption), that doesn't mean that businesses have an inalienable right to be somewhere. If Boston/Chicago don't want a business, they shouldn't have to suffer it's presence.
this is horribly misinformed.
you cant discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in Boston/Chicago.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sexual-orientation-discrimination-rights-29541.html
no, the mayor is not within his rights. what exactly do you think the constitution is for? as an example, protecting the people, which includes corporations, against popularly elected politicians who enforce moral rights instead of the law.
you cant discriminate against businesses on the basis of things their officers/owners said and their religious preferences.
where do people come up with this bullshit.
|
On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked. Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion.
It is a second class solution. Call it marriage, have the city wherever perform it if people want that. If a Mandir wants to marry same sex couples, then they can do so. If a church doesn't want to, they don't have to.
|
On July 28 2012 05:21 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:54 Mauldo wrote:
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur. Please provide sources on this; arguments so far have revolved around the idea that CFA company policy does not discriminate against gays, but that the objection is to which organizations they give money to. I would be quite surprised if this were provably true and had not been brought up yet in this thread. By the rest of your post I am guessing you made a leap/assumption based on ignorance.
I've seen many articles *speculating* that in order to be a franchise owner, you are preferably married to your first wife (no divorce) and want to have children. In fact, one article I read said that they even would interview the children to see how the father/mother runs the household. Something along the lines of "if you can't properly run your own family, you can't properly run a business."
On July 28 2012 04:42 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked. Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion. The first amendment grants "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Free exercise thereof allows for religions to follow their beliefs towards marriage. No, marriage in a religious building conducted by a religious official is associated with religion. That does not mean that all marriages are religious or that all marriages need to be conducted by a priest or that everything a priest touches is religious. If an atheist couple wish to marry in a church because of the cultural heritage of hundreds of years of church marriages then that doesn't mean they have a religious marriage, it just means that they like church weddings. God doesn't personally sign every marriage license, they go ahead with or without his blessing. Church/Priest/(insert religion) {Pardon my bolding}. Your first sentence is reinforcing my point. Atheism is handled in the bible differently then homosexuality, it's comparing apples and oranges. When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest it gains a religious stamp. If you want a non-religious, domestic partnerships is what the state has deemed the equivalent.
You can't really use the Bible as a reference in particular - the entire basis of "traditional marriage" is that it has traditionally been between a man and woman throughout time by nearly all civilizations. If the entire argument was based just on what the Bible says, it would have been thrown out a long time ago and gay marriage would be legal already on a Federal level.
When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest, there is no "religious" stamp as you allude to because there is no specific consensus. Some Christians might recognize the marriage, some might not, etc. It's up to the individual church to decide whether or not to marry. The point is that the government is in charge of issuing marriage licenses - not any church.
Almost no one in support of gay marriage is advocating that Christians (or any religious person) be forced to marry a homosexual couple or anything of that regard. I'd gather almost all advocates of gay marriage would support a church's ability to refuse a homosexual couple from attempting to marry inside their church. What they're advocating is simply the issuance of a government license with the title "marriage." That's it.
The government decided to get involved on the matter of having their licenses as titled "marriage" thus it is a government issue and not a religious issue. The religious part isn't even being addressed, so I don't understand why religious people are up in arms.
|
The reason shit like this needs to happen is that most people aren't aware of chicfilas involvement with such organization's and that if they are too many people are alright with such an involvement. Homophobia is
this generations racism /sexism and something needs to be done about it.
|
On July 28 2012 05:21 Ryalnos wrote:
Please provide sources on this; arguments so far have revolved around the idea that CFA company policy does not discriminate against gays, but that the objection is to which organizations they give money to. I would be quite surprised if this were provably true and had not been brought up yet in this thread. By the rest of your post I am guessing you made a leap/assumption based on ignorance.
The distinction is subtle. According to this 2007 Forbes article:
Loyalty to the company isn't the only thing that matters to Cathy, who wants married workers, believing they are more industrious and productive. One in three company operators have attended Christian-based relationship-building retreats through WinShape at Berry College in Mount Berry, Ga. The programs include classes on conflict resolution and communication. Family members of prospective operators--children, even--are frequently interviewed so Cathy and his family can learn more about job candidates and their relationships at home. "If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
The parent company asks people who apply for an operator license to disclose marital status, number of dependents and involvement in "community, civic, social, church and/or professional organizations."
But Danielle Alderson, 30, a Baltimore operator, says some fellow franchisees find that Chick-fil-A butts into its workers' personal lives a bit much. She says she can't hire a good manager who, say, moonlights at a strip club because it would irk the company. "We are watched very closely by Chick-fil-A," she says. "It's very weird."
Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)
Chick-fil-A screen franchisees for sinfulness, but those franchisees in turn can't screen their employees for the same thing.
|
On July 28 2012 05:33 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 05:21 Ryalnos wrote:On July 28 2012 04:54 Mauldo wrote:
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur. Please provide sources on this; arguments so far have revolved around the idea that CFA company policy does not discriminate against gays, but that the objection is to which organizations they give money to. I would be quite surprised if this were provably true and had not been brought up yet in this thread. By the rest of your post I am guessing you made a leap/assumption based on ignorance. I've seen many articles *speculating* that in order to be a franchise owner, you are preferably married to your first wife (no divorce) and want to have children. In fact, one article I read said that they even would interview the children to see how the father/mother runs the household. Something along the lines of "if you can't properly run your own family, you can't properly run a business." Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:42 Jisall wrote:On July 28 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked. Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion. The first amendment grants "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Free exercise thereof allows for religions to follow their beliefs towards marriage. No, marriage in a religious building conducted by a religious official is associated with religion. That does not mean that all marriages are religious or that all marriages need to be conducted by a priest or that everything a priest touches is religious. If an atheist couple wish to marry in a church because of the cultural heritage of hundreds of years of church marriages then that doesn't mean they have a religious marriage, it just means that they like church weddings. God doesn't personally sign every marriage license, they go ahead with or without his blessing. Church/Priest/(insert religion) {Pardon my bolding}. Your first sentence is reinforcing my point. Atheism is handled in the bible differently then homosexuality, it's comparing apples and oranges. When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest it gains a religious stamp. If you want a non-religious, domestic partnerships is what the state has deemed the equivalent. You can't really use the Bible as a reference in particular - the entire basis of "traditional marriage" is that it has traditionally been between a man and woman throughout time by nearly all civilizations. If the entire argument was based just on what the Bible says, it would have been thrown out a long time ago and gay marriage would be legal already on a Federal level. When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest, there is no "religious" stamp as you allude to because there is no specific consensus. Some Christians might recognize the marriage, some might not, etc. It's up to the individual church to decide whether or not to marry. The point is that the government is in charge of issuing marriage licenses - not any church. Almost no one in support of gay marriage is advocating that Christians (or any religious person) be forced to marry a homosexual couple or anything of that regard. I'd gather almost all advocates of gay marriage would support a church's ability to refuse a homosexual couple from attempting to marry inside their church. What they're advocating is simply the issuance of a government license with the title "marriage." That's it. The government decided to get involved on the matter of having their licenses as titled "marriage" thus it is a government issue and not a religious issue. The religious part isn't even being addressed, so I don't understand why religious people are up in arms.
In return i don't understand why people are making such a big deal about having "marriage" written on a paper. Get a domestic partnership written on a paper. You could call it a protest or better then a marriage, it doesn't matter to me. Stepping on religious traditions for a word choice is what is upsetting.
|
My thoughts on this have been the same, who cars what they support, the chickens still gonna taste the same
|
First amazon charges sale tax. now my chicken sandwiches getting banned. im a riot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
