Chick-Fil-a to stop supporting anti-gay organizations.

Post Reply New Topic

You know what? Try what you might to vilify everyone on the left, but when this ChikFilA thing broke, I never did anything along the lines of shootings, bomb threats, vandalism or the like. I never ordered a cup of water to b*tch someone out either. The people I know who disagreed with ChikFilA's stance didn't bother with getting involved in their bullsh*t, and basically just stopped going there. Just the loonies pulled the crazy s**t (which of course makes the news, because hell, they're loonies). So I would appreciate it if some people could dislodge their heads from their ignorant asses and recognize that not everyone on the left is f*cking insane and criminal like that.

I also notice any obnoxious rightwinger in this thread likes to take the same three points and parrot them back a la the fallacious emotionally charged language delivery they were conditioned (read: brainwashed) with, via talk radio and fox news channel. Repeating back the same 5 words or phrases someone repeats to you over and over-- it doesn't make a person a bring up valid points, people just create dissonant noise in needlessly losing their temper when they are manipulated, and it's not like it takes a special talent or any kind of thought process other than rote memory and a ton of ignorance. For this good reason I have realized, 5 years ago I ceased to be conservative, even after a lifelong conservative upbringing.

I ate at ChikFilA once (years ago). What I ate was a run-of-the-mill mediocre chicken sandwich meal. Wasn't worthy of writing home about, Haven't been back since, and especially not after this. And before you ask if I'm gay, I'm not (totally hetero-- go ahead and ask me in 50 years, I'll still be hetero) but I've had gay friends, some of which are with their partner for 15+ years and can't get married to get rights like to be on each others insurance and basically don't have the same rights as hetero couples. I think it's easy for people to talk ignorant s**t when something doesn't apply to them.

We haven't said all leftists are that way...



Well problem with that is that the left accused the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Palin, etc. of being responsible for the Gabbie Giffords shooting, and the shooting in Colorado, both turned out to be plain nuts. The shooting in DC however was committed by a left wing activist.



Your sexual orientation is not any of my concern, they haven't advocated rounding up people over sexual orientation, they are simply pro-traditional marriage.

The issue that you and other leftists here blatently ignore is the fact Chick-fil-a was actively threatened by both Chicago Politicians and Politicians from Boston Massachusetts with either not being allowed to have another restaurant in the area, or being forced out of an existing restaurant. That is Left Wing Politicians using their elected office to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. The issue isn't about someone like you, who is a private citizen, the issue is about elected officials abusing the powers of their elected office.

Very well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Reread your posts sometime, Inuyasha. You invariably refer to, "the left," as a singular object--neither acknknowledging nor recognizing that political views lie on a continuum. You have often attributed views to me based on your perception that my general support for progressive social policy means that I buy into the entirety of the left end of the political spectrum.

While you may never have posted the words, "every single person on the left ______," you have, nonetheless, created the impression that you make no allowance for diversity of views.



And there's a case in point, "The left accused..." You could have just as easily have written, "Some people on the left accused...," but it seems to me that your intention was not to be that nuanced. It seems to me that you prefer rhetoric to accuracy.



I believe I am write in assuming that you share this view of marriage. You see the legal institution as best restricted to heterosexual couples only. Well, that political view elevates sexual orientation to a concern. You cannot believe that, and at the same time be unconcerned about other people's sexual orientation--because legal marriage requires consummation and sex is integral to the legal institution.

And your second clause is wildly offensive. You create the implication that anything short of, "rounding people up over sexual orientation," is acceptable policy towards gay and lesbian people in your vision of a civilized society. You have allowed your rhetoric, again, to import implications into your words.

Now I, for one, don't believe that you advocate the recriminilization of homosexuality. But where do you stand on legislation that prohibits employers from firing people for their sexual orientation? Or prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent to homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter)? Where do you stand on the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners of employees? Does that view change where the partners are of the same sex? Where do you stand on DADT?

There are hundreds of ways in which gay and lesbian citizens hold inferior rights and liberties to heterosexual citizens. Are these acceptable in your view because they do not involve "rounding them up?"



Again, you are letting your rhetoric erode your credibility.

You claim that there have been active threats on the part of elected officials in both of these cities. The only evidence I have seen of this is political posturing in letters. Politicians can rant all they like and beat the drums to mobilize their base; and that is all protected political speech. The only thing that is reviewable in Administrative Law is a decision. If either of those cities had taken an administrative action to deprive Chick-fil-a of an opportunity to do business, then there would be a reviewable decision in which your argument would have merit. But they haven't, so there isn't. If you can point me to refusal of a zoning application on the part of chick-fil-a or one of its franchisees, or if you can point me to an attempt on the part of one of these cities to revoke an occupancy permit, then I will happily revisit my point of view. But I strongly suspect that no such action has taken place.

The only aspect of your argument that might have merit is whether this political posturing creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. But city councillors are not judges. Their biases are politically protected, and the decisions of legislative bodies are immune from review on that basis. So, if statute vests decision making into City Council, then apprehension of bias is irrelevant. But if statute vests decision making to an appointed board or to a quasi-judicial body, then bias on the part of individual decisions makers becomes relevant. But, of course, you have not reasearched the enabling legislation in either Illinois or Massachusetts, so you have no idea what mechanisms might exist in those jurisdictions to make administrative decisions to impede Chick-fil-a.

You've simply concluded that politicians making political statements constitutes abuse of office.

visagrunt, I never said "every single person on the left" because I wasn't saying every person on the left is like that. If I thought that about every single person on the left was that way, I'd come right out and say so.



Except what I said was entirely accurate because it wasn't just one person pushing the phony narrative, it was a large group of people, including Democrats in elected office, people in the "mainstream" media, etc. So if I had said "some person on the left" then I wouldn't be telling the truth or downplaying the incident to fit a phony narrative.



visagrunt, there is a difference between feelings and actions. If you want to go to bed with another man, that's your business. However, you have no business trying to force me to accept something that I am opposed to out of religious reasons. People have all kinds of impulsive urges all the time, but you can choose not to do something.





That's not what I said... The purpose of a heterosexual marriage is to have children and then provide a stable environment for said children to grow up. A homosexual couple cannot sire offspring without outside assistance (either sperm donor or a surrogate mother). There is a point when you are infringing on other people's religious liberties visagrunt.



I'm for Don't Ask Don't Tell, as a policy because I don't think it is anyone's business to know one's sexual orientation, it is the easiest way to ensure someone is not being discriminated against based on orientation.

As far as landlords or employers, if that is the reason why they are refusing to hire, lease, or actually fire someone then that's wrong. However, I've also seen people use "sexual orientation" as a way to avoid being fired, kicked out of an apartment, etc. when they were either not doing their job, or way behind on rent in the case of the rental property.



Hey I'm for "civil unions" as long as it isn't called marriage, I think marriage isn't simply a secular issue, it is a religious one.



Wrong visagrunt, while other people here might not understand the situation, it is you that are letting rhetoric erode your credibility.



Doesn't matter if it is political posturing, Chick'fil'a is privately owned, they are threatening private citizens with government actions because the politician disagrees with said private citizen. Not only is it amoral, they have also provided evidence that Chick'fil'a can use against them if the company decides to sue. Even the ACLU has admitted Chick'fil'a has a slam dunk case.



Isn't threatening to use one's political office to persecute someone a form of harassment/intimidation, and wouldn't that be considered illegal. Quite frankly, Chick'fil'a may have ground already to sue both Chicago and Boston politicians.



Verbally attacking private citizens to try to intimidate them isn't merely politicians making political statements. It's an abuse of power.

Hm. When I married my wife, neither of us were thinking about children at the time. It was only for love. I suspect love is the reason why most people want to get married - straight or gay.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The reasoning behind traditional marriage at least from a secular standpoint is to sire offspring and provide a stable environment for said offspring.

Well, as I'm a husband and a father, I think I have special insight into the matter.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No, no you wouldn't. You would continue in your odious pattern of generalization. It suits your purpose which is not to engage, but to inflame.



No, it was entirely inaccurate, because not every person on the left pushed a phony narrative. And notice, I said, "some people," not, "some person." Selective citation is another of your sins.



I'm not forcing you to accept anything. My legal relationship with another person, and our legal relationship with the state has absolutely no effect on you.

You are advocating for denying equal benefit of the law (or in U.S. terms, due process) to a defined class of people. The freedom of your beliefs (whether religious or otherwise) stops at the equality rights of others. You can believe as much as you want, but you cannot fashion the law to entrench those beliefs on others.



What religious liberty is being infringed upon? How does the same-sex marriage of any couple limit your ability to hold to your beliefs? The First Amendment does not guarantee that the law will conform with your beliefs--it only guarantees that the law will never oblige you to hold your beliefs in conformity with the law.



Then let's get government out of the marriage business altogether. No joint filing of taxes. No survivor benefits. No testamentary presumptions. No immunity from subpoena. Let's erase all the benefits that accrue to spouses. Then we are all in the same legal position. That is a proposal that I can agree with.

We are still left in a position that your political beliefs are well beyond the standard of "rounding people up." So why use that language? You are being provocative where no provocation is called for.



First--it matters very much. Speech is protected. Actions are not protected. Your great love for the First Amendment should make that perfectly plain.

As for amoral--the law is not a moral instrument. The law does not impose morality.

And the ACLU's position is not that they have a slam-dunk case, but that they would have such a case. If either city were to take the action that you claim has been threatened. But neither has, so there is no case to answer, yet.



It's not a pattern of behaviour, so it seems to me that harassment would not be made out. Intimidation is a more interesting question, but even here I don't believe that it is made out. First, intimidation has to involve a threat to use illegal means (such as a threat of violence). If an Alderman has the legal means to vote for or against a zoning application, then it is not intimidation to say, "I intend to vote against." If, however, zoning is in the hands of a quasi-judicial board, then the question would arise whether the Alderman has the apparent means to carry out the threat.

It's an interesting argument--and certainly has more substance than any that you've yet made. I'm not yet persuaded, but I am interested enough to do some more reading.



And I say it's protected speech. I might not agree with it--but I will defend the speaker's right to utter it.

Personally, I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that I love my bf. However in the future we plan to get married for the lawful benefits of what comes with legal marriage.

I've reproduced once in my life. I knew I was not going to be able to take care of my offspring so I did an adoption. I doubt I could do that again, it was hard enough ripping my heart out and stomping on it the one and only time (and people always talk about this like they know what they're talking about-- they don't, they don't know what it entails, but they'll continue talking out their ass like it's an option that suits everyone or that everyone is able to do it and be fine with it). Nonetheless I don't have the function to care for an NT child nonetheless a spectrumite. fyi: my offspring is very LFA and is also nonverbal. That would be even more difficult. To be honest, I was lucky as it is that there was a proper family to adopt her, since a lot of kids are hard to place, especially special needs children. If she was put in a bad home though, I could never forgive myself for it. Because you can't give someone any more trust, than to let them raise your offspring.

*vomits* secular? Um, no, that's from your RELIGIOUS standpoint. You're not fooling anyone. From a religion that I DON'T adhere to, nor do I ever want your church in my life. After all, for the constitution illiterate, there is freedom of religion listed in there. Meaning, If I'm not into your religion, I don't need to adhere to it. So get it out of government. It has no business in my life if I've already tried to get this far away from it poisoning my life.

Meaning, I have no inclination to have children. Which in a dedicated long-term relationship where intimacy is involved, means paying for birth control, and if you've ever looked at the prices and added it up (and I'm talking not the $10 pill that makes me have aura visual migraines and makes me pass out, but a method that is suitable for my body, and everybody is different), you'd be so surprised how prices have gone way up since they were deregulated under Bush. Birth control of any kind is hella expensive now. Not as expensive as having kids providing people can AFFORD it in this sh*tty economy (which was already sh*tty when Obama took office and inherited this mess that congress is still sitting on their filthy hands with regarding their 12% approval rating), or that you're even assuming that all people even DESIRE to have kids (ever seen what a kid is like when their parents didn't want them? You know what that does to a kid? Ever comment about how someone shouldn't have ever had kids or weren't fit to be parents? Here's a hint: not everyone is suitable to have kids or wants kids. Assuming so is just flaming ignorance).

In the end, I am not a baby factory, nor am I mother material. Get out of my vagina. You have no business being there anyway. And for love of if there even is a god, my bf wants to have a vasectomy, but so many people have given us resistance because "ZOMG you're young, you can't possibly EVAR know what you want at that age!!" (We've wanted to go the sterilization route since we were 21 and several years later we both still feel the same way about it). And the people who look at us like we're crazy and even forbid sterilization to people who haven't had a bucket of kids yet in certain states.

And before you accuse me of being a slut or any other sleezy derogatory term, I've been with a grand total of one guy sexually, who has only been with me, and we've been together for 11 years. You can sit down now.

Apparently I must be an "untraditional!!" marriage values person (well, I suppose I must be "untraditional" in anything considering I'm different by default thanks to my AS and have always had to do different workarounds and methods than other people and do things that suit me because other people's definition of how things should be don't fit with me and this just appears to be more of the same generalization bullsh*t because I've never fit in that box). I refuse to be a baby factory, and I actually tolerate people who are made different-- in their sexual orientation as well. Afaik, any gay person I've known knows they were different all along. To consider it a choice is also ignorant and backwards, and more than likely indicates that you've never bothered getting to know anybody personally who is gay without pushing them away with your bias and hatred.

Chick-fil-a are religious hypocrites simply for the fact that their chicken is injected with artificial growth hormones and other additives not made organically by God.

Interesting point.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That may be true under some extremely strict interpretations of Seventh Day Adventist doctrine.

The growth hormones exist in nature according to physical laws. Just as the Creator willed.

Man cannot create anything contrary to the laws of nature.

ruveyn

My Lord, ruveyn, are you becoming a theist?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer