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

Post Reply New Topic

See, that's it for me. You don't like this company? Don't trade with them, don't do business with them. Vote with your feet, same as you would if they pissed off a friend of yours. I certainly wouldn't have any issue with this. To be honest, from what I've heard about this company's food, I probably wouldn't be huge customers of theirs anyway.

What you do not have the right to do is to use the might of the State to use it's official power to abuse/punish representatives of businesses that make statements against the de rigeur norms of the day, or to threaten violence or make bomb threats over those that do.

I might well not agree with Chick-a-fila but guess what? I don't have to. I can go walkies to a business that I do like. Perhaps that nice pizza parlour run by those nice Turkish Muslim fellas who make the most amazing pizzas. If I don't like them either, I don't like them. Simple as that.

Which has zero probative value. If the best argument you can muster is someone's you tube video, then you are a pathetic advocate for your position.



Do you even read what you write? How could a boycott of Chick-fil-a be about people being fed up with liberal bigotry?

But back to the substantive point: you haven't made the link back to persecution. The core issue that you have utterly failed to acknowledge is that if Chick-fil-a has the law on its side--and I agree with you that it does--then I suggest that persecution is only made out if the courts fail to protect it from the behaviour that you complain of.

If bomb threats and political threats amount to persecution, then abortion clinics, synagogues, mosques and gay community centres have been the subject of persecution in the United States for years. I don't subscribe to that view, and I certainly don't subscribe to yours.[/quote]



One of my protesters? You are skating on very thin ice with that remark.



Who got banned? Where did Chick-fil-a get banned? Can you point to a single case where the company was denied zoning permission to establish, or had an occupancy permit revoked?

No one got banned from anywhere.



That does not change the fact that the bomb threats are a criminal act, that is subject to criminal penalty. If you want to suggest that police forces are engaged in a conspiracy to protect the person who uttered this bomb threat, you are welcome to do so. But you should think seriously about protecting what little reputation for clear headedness you have left.



A corporation cannot have a religious belief. Period. A corporation can have a religious purpose, to be sure. And a corporation formed for a religious purpose can sue and be sued in respect of the religious beliefs and practices of its membership.

But Chick-fil-a was not established for a religious purpose. It is a business corporation that is operated for the purpose of earning profit for its shareholders. While the directors and senior officers of the corporation may manage it along religious lines, that does not make the coporation a religious institution, and it does not imbue the coporation with religious belief.



First, adoption is not a religious sacrament. While religious institutions have often been involved in charitable activities, such as the operation of orphanages and hospitals, none of these activities is a religious activity. Only in the sphere of education does the line between public programs and religious organizations' delivery of them get blurred, because religious instruction is an element of parochial schooling, and thus merits a degree of protection. But adoption has always been a matter of civil law--never religious practice. Consequently, when religion seeks to deliver a public program it must do so in complete accordance with civil law. Religious institutions were given a choice: continue to run adoption services in compliance with the law; or protect their religious beliefs and discontinue the practice. They made their choice, and no penalty arises from so doing.

But you're argument wasn't that religious institutions were going to be forced to stop placing children for adoption. You're argument was that there were, "plans to start going after religious institutions for 'hate speech.'" And you have presented no evidence of such plans.



Are you suggesting that behavioural choice is not protected? Are you suggesting that liberty always stops with behaviour that the legislature chooses to prohibit?

Homosexual behaviour is legal in every jurisdiction in the United States--because the Supreme Court struck down all laws that sought to criminalize it. But child marriages continue to be illegal. Sexual intercourse with minors continues to be illegal. It follows that there is no legal basis on which to argue that child marriages ought properly to be legal. For every crackpot you can find "advocating sexual equality towards children," I can find one advocating killing homosexuals. This isn't about a race to the bottom, this is about realism.

As for polygamy, I am very interested in how you reconcile the legal prohibition against polygamy with the sincerely held religious beliefs of some muslims and lattter day saints congregations. Does their religious freedom trump civil law? If so, then why is polygamy an argument against marriage liberalization? On the other hand if their religious freedom does not trump civil law, then why does the religious freedom of evangelicals?

Last edited by visagrunt on 05 Oct 2012, 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In regard to child marriage - it was the reddest of the red states that had until comparatively recently allowed for girls in their early teens to marry grown men. Just look at how Jerry Lee Lewis' career had been virtually destroyed when he had married his "child bride."

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 05 Oct 2012, 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unless it's a conservative town council banning sex shops and liquor stores, in which case they're doing god's work.



Pedophilia is programmed. Why would anyone choose to become a pedophile? Children cannot consent though, so the consequences of acting on a pedophilic attraction are very negative, unlike homosexuality which hurts no one. There is a huge power imbalance between a child and an adult. Such a relationship would end up being coercive. Pedophiles unfortuantely have a condition which is not compatible with the way our kids need to be raised. We should try to do the best we can psychologically for them. I see it as an illness, not a crime. As long as they can refrain from acting on it I see no need to punish them.

Adults can consent, so any sexual minority within the boundary of consent is immune from this argument of yours. Polyamory is fine too. If that's a slippery slope you're accusing the left of, I think it's a logical next step as well. I would defend it based on the principle that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want. You're the one complaining about freedom of religion and yet your religious beliefs are your only motivation for persecuting these people. Maybe other people don't share your religion?

Not sure why I bother with this. It's clear from your statements that we're in different universes pretty much, and it is futile trying to argue with someone with such different views. You strike me as someone with quite an entitlement complex:

"If I can't deprive people of their rights according to my religious beliefs, then I am being persecuted for my religious beliefs".

Do you understand how the law works? Your rights end where someone else's rights begin.

So here is a logic problem to shake you from that:

Suppose it was someone's religious belief that gay relationships were the only correct relationships endorsed by god, and straight relationships were caused by satan. Suppose this religion endorsed gay marriage and banned heterosexual marriage. Suppose it was codified into law that the only purpose for heterosexual intercourse was reproduction, and they held ceremonies once a year to impregnate women of a certain age, and then went back to having gay sex for the rest of their lives. Suppose people belonging to this religious group were a majority in your country, and they used their government to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, even people who didn't share it, like yourself.

See the issue here? That's unfair to you, that your marriage should be banned to suit someone else's beliefs. They don't suit your beliefs. Banning gay marriage or adoption or whatever at the legal level is akin to establishing a state religion, which you'll conveniently find is unconstitutional. Pretty sure there's an amendment against that one. I'm not going to name which one it is, but it's one you've constantly accused 'liberals' of ignoring, and you seem to be quite content to ignore it yourself.

Careful with that hypothetical gay marriage being the norm, with an annual breeding to make children, or else the right wing Republicans will latch onto that, and say that's what the "gay agenda" is working for!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

We had a meeting last night, and I can tell you that the Official Gay Agenda (tm) has only one item on it: fellatio.

! !! !! !! !

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

What about fisting and fudge packing?

ruveyn

Due to recent budget cuts, all packers have been temporarily laid off and the work has been outsourced to Uganda.

Um, excuse me, you've got to be kidding me, but you are failing to acknowledge that these people are certifiable looney crazy (even if I did point it out to you before, I guess you must have thread amnesia about it). I don't claim the crazies because I am NOT ONE of them. Neither is anyone else on this thread (and that includes your favorite, Bill). You cannot lump people into an absolute f*cking nuts generalization like that and expect people to be content with it. Lots of us humans (read, a lot of us liberals too) have more of a moral compass, public decency, and a bigger heart than to ever do something as horrific as that shooting spree and for you to throw out such a wild horrific hasty generalization shows how you cannot distinguish, into actually viewing people, as true living breathing people, to separate individuals capable of their own thought process and choices from f*cking nutjobs who give humanity as a whole a bad name and make the evening news to perpetuate your biases.

Read: I have not been to Chik-Fil-A since I discovered that I have no appetite for mediocre chicken sandwiches. And with this I know I will never go back. voila. voting with my wallet. I did not do a shooting spree, I did not spraypaint "tastes like hate" on their property, nor did I even order a cup of water to b***h someone out. Why? because I'm not a looney and you refuse to acknowledge it even though I blatantly already pointed it out to you.

Go ahead, repeat yourself 5 more times, and call me a shooter/vandal/threatener/whatever/criminal though like you think you know me or anyone else in this country (or even this thread) who might possibly be liberal.

I personally am the type who is mellow in person, I read books on the deck while drinking green tea, I meditate, do yoga, play my instrument, draw and paint and have a love of nature trails. But I apparently must be "so" incredibly looney and violent according to you! *snort*

Here's a hint: the more you keep assuming about people (and especially with such sweeping generalizations like that atrocity you posted above), the less you'll actually get to know them, for who they are as individual people.

Child marriages are as consensual as marrying a goat (aka not consensual and based upon manipulation/abuse). Homosexuality? Between two grown adults, it's far more consensual than that. Polygamy (providing that everyone is of legal age and is consenting) has nothing to do with this aside from the funny point that has already been mentioned about it when it comes to religious freedom.

@ musicforanna

Actually, there were political motives for the shooter in DC, his attempted shooting spree was politically motivated and he was a member of a pro-homosexual group.

The person that shot Gabriel Giffords was simply nuts and was actually a former Democrat campaign worker, he had 0 ties to the Tea Party. Yet the Tea Party got accused of being responsible.

There have been conservative bloggers targetted by left wing hacks phoning in 911 calls about made up shootings, and getting SWAT teams to show up at said bloggers' houses. We've been lucky thus far nobody has gotten killed yet!

If it were conservatives doing this to liberal bloggers the media would be pitching a fit, however they are perfectly okay as long the victim is a conservative (barring CNN (then again one of their contributors was a victim of this)).

So this is a systematic pattern, not some isolated incident.

I doubt the pro-gay group the shooter belonged to had actually motivated him to violence. I seriously suspect had the other members known what he was going to do, they probably would have hog tied this guy.
I recently had collected pledges to vote for marriage equality here in Washington state, and neither I nor any other person there was about to shoot anyone, or do them any kind of harm. So much for your notion that working for gay civil rights makes you an attempted murderer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well the Tea Party got accused of being responsible for the shooting of Gabriel Giffords, when the nut had no ties to the Tea Party, but instead actually was a former DNC campaign worker. That apparently was okay..

Yet I'm not allowed to point out how the shooter in DC is tied to a pro-homosexual group?

Talk about a double standard Kraichgauer.

No, I didn't say you couldn't bring it up. In fact, you have the perfect right to say anything you want. But I also have the right to point out that the D.C. shooter was probably a troubled individual, and not motivated to try killing by his political organization.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You can argue that the organization might not have approved, but the guy clearly did it for political reasons.

But what other member of the organization would pull such a stunt? Virtually no others would, would be a safe bet.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer