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

Post Reply New Topic

No. I am stating the obvious. Anything that man does or makes is in the natural order. There is no magic, or non-natural about it. All humans can do is transform energy and matter according to the laws of physics.

ruveyn

I just find it interesting as to how selective liberals when it comes to the 14th amendment and the 1st Amendment.

That includes some liberals on this forum.

Those damned liberals and their liberal applications of liberalism liberally!

Actually the term "liberal" was hijacked by leftist progressives to make what they really stand for sound like it means something when in reality they stand for the exact opposite.

Better to be a left-leaning progressive than a regressive righttard

Better to be someone that is trying to reverse course, than someone that is trying to continue to drive the country over a cliff.

All of which is so much empty rhetoric.

Nowhere does the 1st Amendment protect people from the consequences of their speech. Within the limitations established by the Supreme Court, people are free to express themselves as they like, and bear the consequences of that expression--not consequences imposed by government, but consequences imposed by listeners.

And the due process argument appears to me to be a stretch. When it comes to the behaviour of city officials, I could be persuaded that there's an argument, but I'm not yet convinced.

But let's bear in mind that "liberalism" is about the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people. No one is trying to stop Dan Cathy from believing what he will and speaking as he likes. But plenty of people are trying to stop gay people from living their lives as they like. Where does the greater affront to liberalism lie? It seems to me clear that it lies squarely at the feet of social conservatives.

Nice, I'm glad you finally came out of the closet about your regressive nature

I never said I was being regressive, I was pointing out the fact there is such a think as progressing in the wrong direction, and I would think driving over the edge of a cliff is probably the wrong direction to travel.

In case you missed it, there was a sign about a mile back warning about the cliff.

But what could conceivably be wrong with extending civil rights to all Americans - gay or straight?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Cept you're not doing that Kraichgauer, instead you're opening up persecution of people based on their religion...

No, I'm against people who use religion to justify their prejudices.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

How is anyone being persecuted?

Are people persecuting Dan Cathy when they say, "I'm not eating at Chick-fil-a until they stop supporting anti-gay organizations?" Because in my book that doesn't amount to persecution at all.

Or are you limiting your definition of persecution to elected city officials making threatening noises about allowing Chick-fil-a to open restaurants? Well, here you might be closer to the mark, but if you are closer to the mark, then the law already provides for a remedy. But even here, it's not Dan Cathy that is being persecuted. It is his business--which, after all, is a separate legal person. And since corporations are not natural persons, it is meaningless to talk about persecuting them on the basis of their religion, since a corporation cannot be a member of a congregation, nor can it hold a belief. But I will grant you that the political impact falls upon the business as a result of the personal beliefs of its leader.

But here again--free speech is not without consequences. Dan Cathy cannot be stopped from speaking as he likes, believing as he likes or donating the profits of his corporation to the causes that he likes. But he cannot claim to be immune from the response to that speech, those beliefs and those donations. The simple fact of the matter is that Dan Cathy and people who think like them have been shown that they are falling behind the Zeitgeist. The extension of full civil liberties to gay and lesbian people in the United States is, I suggest, inevitable.

You can go on believing as you like. If you don't approve of same-sex marriage, you are perfectly free not to contract one.

This isn't about what Dan Cathy said, and you know it. This is about the threats directed towards Chick'fil'a by people that were in government. Such as the Mayor of Boston, and the Mayor of Chicago, among others.



You know damn well it has to do with what the politicians were saying, I really don't give a damn what Dan Cathy says.

It has to do with people calling in bomb threats, we have the shooting in Washington DC, which was linked to your called protest. One of your protestors tried to go on a shooting spree in DC.



Unless Dan Cathy is a sitting mayor, or some other elected official with the ability to actually use an elected office to persecute Chick'fil'a, then this really doesn't have a damn thing to do with Dan Cathy, which I have indicated repeatedly in this thread, which you repeatedly ignored because it doesn't fit your false narrative.



Which I am perfectly free at the moment to voice my disapproval, but if it goes through, there are plans to start going after religious institutions for "hate speech," because their religious beliefs view homosexuality to be a sin.

In which case, how can a corporation be persecuted on the basis of religious beliefs? How can a corporation have a religious belief? After all, it is you who suggested:



So how do you reconcile those two statements.



And how does this amount to persecution? And how is this persecution linked to religious belief?

Bomb threats and shootings are criminalized in all jurisdictions in the United States, and we can fully expect that people who engage in that behaviour would expose themselves to criminal liability for their actions. Far from being persecuted, those who are victims of criminal behaviour can avail themselves of remedies in civil law, and expect the states to respond to complaints of criminal behaviour.



Perfectly fine--it has nothing to do with Cathy. The only reason I kept the reference to him was that he can be a victim of persecution. But a corporation is far less likely so to be.



Can you demonstrate any religious organization that has been successfully pursued on that basis in relation to a matter that is strictly within the ambit of the practice of religion? I have said time and again that I fully support the right of congregations to hold their religious views, to refuse to perform marriages that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs and for their individual members to hold whatever positions they choose.

You, on the other hand, are content to see an identifiable class of persons deprived of civil liberties on the basis of a specious, speculative argument.

From a left wing partisan hack video...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4VcHMPPnSs[/youtube]



Quite simple, the thing crossed the line from free speech into actual bomb threats, shootings, and politicians threatening to use their political office in a manner that even the ACLU admitted that Chick'fil'a would have a slam dunk case.

I had to double check whom Dan Cathy is, whom is the man you guys tried to smear as a hater, really the buycott wasn't about Dan Cathy, it was about people being fed up with liberals bigotry.



Banning a privately owned company from a city based on the owners and their president's religious beliefs is a violation of everything this country stands for.



I don't think there were ever any arrests for the bomb threats, only reason the DC shooter is being charged is the security guard caught the left wing nutcase.

Just like how the New Black Panthers got away with voter intimidation due to Obama's corrupt DoJ.



Chick'fil'a is a privately owned business, it is not traded on the Stock Exchange, so yeah considering this company closes every Sunday for instance, I think there is a little bit of a religious aspect to the company.



Concerning marriage not yet (considering large parts of the country still ban homosexual marriages), but there are other instances of discrimination that have already occurred, like religious institutions being forced to stop finding homes for children (adoption), because they view homosexuality to be a sin (I think the children in question were also of that religious background too). The organizations in question gave them information of other agencies that could help those individuals, but due to religious reasons they couldn't support them on adopting kids.

Those religious institutions are no longer being allowed to assist in finding homes for children.





Irregardless of people's sexual preferences the choice to act on it is a behaviorial choice. What about child marriages? Polygamy? Where does it stop visagrunt? Btw, don't bother trying to use the slippery slope argument cause some left wing crackpots are openly advocating sexuality towards children again.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... erving-pub