Chick-Fil-A President: Men shouldn't eat other men's chicken

[volprof]

I find it funny that you think Mr. Cathy should reread the Bible. Which Bible did you read? The Non Christian Translation?

I assume that post is intended for me and not Volved. As I said in my previous post, I could be wrong. I don't claim to be an expert in the Bible, as some on here do. But, to prove your point, please show us where, in the Bible, it outlaws homosexuality, or, more to the point, gay marriage. I know it says a man ought not to lay with a man as he does a woman (whatever that means) in Leviticus; however, Leviticus also tells us that tying up a cow with a certain knot on a certain day is an offense worthy of death, or something like that (I know it might not say that exactly, but there are offenses punishable by death there that are similar). Furthermore, are we to buy into the Old Testament, which speaks nothing of Jesus' sermons, or just the New Testament (the two often conflict)? (I don't know that many Christian denominations have ever answered that question, which continues to baffle many a soul.) The only other place in the Bible that discusses something like homosexuality (a man lying with a man, and not gay marriage, which is never discussed), is in one of the apostle's writings. Peter or Paul, I can't remember exactly which one. Jesus himself never spoke of the matter. But, if you can shed some light on the matter, I'm happy to hear what you have to say.

On a slight side note, I've learned in my short time here on Earth that the quicker you can get used to change the better for you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't necessarily defend things you believe in, but it does mean that things are going to change whether you like it or not. So, the quicker you can accept the fact, the less stress and grief you will have to deal with. I'm only 27, but I can recall when I was younger (Southern Baptist upbringing) people talking about how God intended the races to be separate and made languages different to keep us apart (Tower of Babel sort of thing). Now with modern linguistics and anthropology being what they are, these "Bible" theories are basically rendered inept at best. They sound more like some people simply trying to nit-pick through the Bible to justify their beliefs. Homosexuality and gay marriage are no different in my opinion. That's not to say that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a malicious bigot though. Many people are well-intentioned.

 

[vollygirl]

volprof, the difference (in my heart) of the old and the new testament is the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ.

 

[volprof]

volprof, the difference (in my heart) of the old and the new testament is the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Vollygirl, I know that you have nothing personal or malicious against gay people. You seem like a very good person, and I respect your beliefs on the matter. However, I don't know that your statement answered the question. As I said before, Jesus never spoke of anything like homosexuality, queerness, gayness, whatever, at least according to the gospels. If anyone can find where he does, I'll reconsider my previous comments, but, until then.

I'm not trying to be a butthead, I swear I'm not, but it seems to me that the differences between the Old and New Testaments have never been reconciled. People often nit-pick through each what they want to justify their particular worldview. According to the Old Testament, we ought to wipe out any non-believers. And before anyone think "hurrah" to that, be careful: according to the Old Testament, non-believers are anyone not Hebrew. I would imagine that is the vast majority of us. And I don't want to do away with us.

 

[PKT_VOL]

While I agree with you in principle (I agree that owners should technically have to right to serve who they wish), PKT, we just can't allow business practices like that as a society. Such practices are antithetical to a fully integrated, well-functioning society. Although not likely to happen by any means (and we can thank the profit motive for that), it's a slippery slope. We can't allow any one company to deny its services and/or goods to a particular group of people. That group could be denied essential goods or services by a particular business block. Like I said, this scenario is not likely in our current society, but a nightmare situation in which such a scenario becomes fact is conceivable. And we know this for certain, i.e. Nazi Germany and the Jews (just as one example).

Obviously, Chick-fil-A is not an essential service, but it's still a business, and any society that allows its businesses to deny certain customers (based upon identity markers) is an undemocratic one.

It is a matter of freedom.

It is also a matter of private vs public. A private business should be allowed to do whatever they want, hire who they want, sell want they want, and sell to whomever they want so long as they do not harm or violate another's life, liberty, or property. The societal argument in conjunction with the historical argument (Nazi's) is only valid in the public arena (government). Applying such an argument to the private sector only restricts the freedom of a society and is thus a negative net gain. It also has a slippery slope as you mentioned in your argument.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This pretty much sums it up. Just like the way we can look back now and have a difficult time imagining how we once forced black people to use different restrooms, drink from different water fountains, etc, future generations will look back on this time and have a difficult time understanding us denying homosexuals their civil rights. That doesn't mean that there won't be people who are opposed to it. I'm sure if you look, you wouldn't have too much trouble finding some people who are still mad that black people are now equal to whites.

Lets not get carried away with comparing the struggles of black people dealing with lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow and bleeding heart liberals breaking up the black families with welfare and feminism to the desires of a few people to have the right to marry and divorce.

Last time I checked, there was no big movement in this country to suppress the gay vote, lynch gay people, or enslave gay people.

 

[volprof]

It is a matter of freedom.

It is also a matter of private vs public. A private business should be allowed to do whatever they want, hire who they want, sell want they want, and sell to whomever they want so long as they do not harm or violate another's life, liberty, or property. The societal argument in conjunction with the historical argument (Nazi's) is only valid in the public arena (government). Applying such an argument to the private sector only restricts the freedom of a society and is thus a negative net gain. It also has a slippery slope as you mentioned in your argument.

I read you loud and clear, and I agree with a lot you have to say. As I said earlier, I agree with you based upon a simple "a person ought to be able to do what they want with their business and money sort of thing." However, just because it seems like a basic freedom doesn't make it right. And to address one your statements, my example of Nazi Germany perfectly defines a society wherein business practices defied a person's right to life, liberty and oftentimes, property. Businesses should never be allowed to pursue such practices: they represent everything antithetical to a society that would hope to overcome personal prejudices and thought that does nothing but further social divisions.

 

[volved]

I don't necessarily think that polygamy is immoral, as long as those being married are of a sufficient enough mental development to actually know and comprehend what they're getting in to. As far as I'm concerned, a person should be able to marry anyone (and as many people as agree to marry them) as they like, as long as whoever they're marrying actually knows what they're doing and getting in to.

And why is the case for polygamy better than the case for gay marriage? Progeny are produced or something?

Marriage is a cultural tradition dating back thousands of years. Many societies in the past and some today have included polygamy in that tradition. No society that I am aware of has a tradition of gay marriage.

If one is concerned with "equal rights" for all then the rational position would be to advocate that the government get out of the business of conferring special rights on combinations of individuals.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Lets not get carried away with comparing the struggles of black people dealing with lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow and bleeding heart liberals breaking up the black families with welfare and feminism to the desires of a few people to have the right to marry and divorce.

Last time I checked, there was no big movement in this country to suppress the gay vote, lynch gay people, or enslave gay people.

So its the liberals' fault for the disintegration of the nuclear black family?

 

[volprof]

Marriage is a cultural tradition dating back thousands of years. Many societies in the past and some today have included polygamy in that tradition. No society that I am aware of has a tradition of gay marriage.

If one is concerned with "equal rights" for all then the rational position would be to advocate that the government get out of the business of conferring special rights on combinations of individuals.

Conferring special rights on married couples ("combinations of individuals"), like right to say what medical care a loved one should get instead of potentially alienated family, or insurance benefits, etc.? I agree that the govt. should treat all individuals the same.

As far as gay marriage and marriage traditions are concerned, however, it is relatively recently in our history that humans get married out of love. Basically since the 1600-1700s, if not later. Before that, it was basically just an economic arrangement. If the history of marriage is an economic arrangement, then what does that say about our so-called tradition of marriage? Maybe the history of marriage is not as serious as we often make it out to be.

 

[Orangeslice13]

So its the liberals' fault for the disintegration of the nuclear black family?

You didn't know that?

 

[volprof]

So its the liberals' fault for the disintegration of the nuclear black family?

PKT, I don't know what it is exactly, but I just gained a little more respect for you. haha!

 

[PKT_VOL]

I read you loud and clear, and I agree with a lot you have to say. As I said earlier, I agree with you based upon a simple "a person ought to be able to do what they want with their business and money sort of thing." However, just because it seems like a basic freedom doesn't make it right. And to address one your statements, my example of Nazi Germany perfectly defines a society wherein business practices defied a person's right to life, liberty and oftentimes, property. Businesses should never be allowed to pursue such practices: they represent everything antithetical to a society that would hope to overcome personal prejudices and thought that does nothing but further social divisions.

Your statements are contradictory. What do you feel is man's role in society? Because I feel we are going down this route.

The Nazi example is of government. It does not deal with the private sector.

I am not trying to argue that it is moral to engage in such practices. However, you can not (or at least should not be able) to regulate others' moral compass in a free society.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You didn't know that?

It's news to me old friend.

 

[PKT_VOL]

PKT, I don't know what it is exactly, but I just gained a little more respect for you. haha!

Thanks :hi:

 

[Orangeslice13]

It's news to me old friend.

Ha. Me too

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So its the liberals' fault for the disintegration of the nuclear black family?

The gov't replaces the man. The gov't is the one that feeds the women and puts a roof over their heads. What incentive does a woman have to stay with a man if she can get the same benefits by getting on the welfare system?

 

[volprof]

Your statements are contradictory. What do you feel is man's role in society? Because I feel we are going down this route.

The Nazi example is of government. It does not deal with the private sector.

I am not trying to argue that it is moral to engage in such practices. However, you can not (or at least should not be able) to regulate others' moral compass in a free society.

I'm not trying to be contradictory; I agree that from a personal freedom standpoint, a business owner should have the right to do whatever they want in terms of customers. While I agree with personal freedoms, I also realize that they can become oppressive. Maybe I didn't do a good job in clarifying this point. Just because it makes sense as a personal freedom doesn't mean that it should be a norm or a socially acceptable practice in our society. It's a freedom in our society to hate anyone you choose, but that doesn't make it right or acceptable - it only makes it acceptable by your (impersonal) standards.

And I understand the Nazi example is one of government regulation, but that's not to say that a society comprised of individuals who take it upon themselves to hold out against certain groups is inconceivable. I don't know for certain, but I would imagine this was the case in Serbia (during the 1990s) as well as other European societies throughout the last few decades (Russian and Soviet pograms come to mind). Whether or not the governments actually required this is irrelevant; given the social movements in these countries at the time, such discrimination would be "warranted" without government sponsorship.

 

[bleedorange0037]

Lets not get carried away with comparing the struggles of black people dealing with lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow and bleeding heart liberals breaking up the black families with welfare and feminism to the desires of a few people to have the right to marry and divorce.

Last time I checked, there was no big movement in this country to suppress the gay vote, lynch gay people, or enslave gay people.

True. I wasn't by any means saying they were equal. Just similar in terms of how the Bible has, at one time or another, been used as a justification for many of the things you mentioned, just as its being used today in an effort to oppose gay marriage. I think everyone can agree that historically gay people haven't suffered even a fraction of the persecution and injustice that black people have.

 

[gcbvol]

True. I wasn't by any means saying they were equal. Just similar in terms of how the Bible has, at one time or another, been used as a justification for many of the things you mentioned, just as its being used today in an effort to oppose gay marriage. I think everyone can agree that historically gay people haven't suffered even a fraction of the persecution and injustice that black people have.

Agree with this. In terms of persecution and suffering the two are not close to comparable.

I do think the situations are somewhat similar when considering many of us on the marriage equality/gay rights side of things see it as a civil rights issue.

 

[volprof]

The gov't replaces the man. The gov't is the one that feeds the women and puts a roof over their heads. What incentive does a woman have to stay with a man if she can get the same benefits by getting on the welfare system?

One could also ask what incentive does a woman have to work a sorry-butt minimum wage service job when she could just as easily stay on welfare and get by with making just as much money, if not more oftentimes. The good-paying manufacturing jobs that might give incentive for people getting their rear-ends off welfare, well, they've been outsourced. Anyhow, that's another conversation for another day, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Weezer]

wtf? I guess I've been hiding under a rock. I went to Chik-Fil-A yesterday. I knew it seemed a little more busy than normal, but I had no idea it was in support of Cathy's statements, lol. I haven't really paid attention since his initial statement. I disagree with his views, but he has the right to his beliefs. That said, govt isn't supposed to be based upon religion but the rights of the governed. Gay marriage doesn't infringe upon Mr. Cathy's rights, so I don't see how his statements should factor into the issue.

The question on right of refusal of service, a business cannot refuse service based upon race, gender, national origin, or religion as it violates civil rights laws. The federal law does not prohibit refusal of service based on sexual orientation, but some state laws do. Personally, I think the LGBT movement should found their own church and declare themselves a religion. What constitutes a religion anyway? It's a set system of beliefs. They believe in their rights to be who they are. Christianity, or any other religion, should not be allowed to deny them that. Some people's views on right of refusal make me laugh. Could you imagine a store owner in today's world putting up a "No Coloreds" or "Whites Only" sign? People would lose their minds.

As for a comparison of the struggles of blacks and gays in this country, there isn't much of one to be made. They're two unique fights. Blacks can't exactly hide their skin color so of course their struggles were more public. Gays and lesbians can hide their sexual orientation from the general public, but that itself is its own kind of slavery. Never being allowed to be yourself is a slavery of the soul. What happens between consenting adults is not something the public should concern itself with. Please note the "consenting adults" part because inevitably someone likes to run with the general "well if the public should turn its head" arguement and try to make it address matters that do not pertain to consenting adults.

In the end, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but laws are supposed to address a person's individual rights. There's a reason our countries forefathers proposed a separation of church and state. It should remain that way. In the fight of equal rights, religion should not play a role.

 

[volved]

Conferring special rights on married couples ("combinations of individuals"), like right to say what medical care a loved one should get instead of potentially alienated family, or insurance benefits, etc.? I agree that the govt. should treat all individuals the same.

I think an individual should be able to assign rights as he pleases. For instance to specify who makes medical care decisions. Maybe he prefers his brother, father, or a friend to make that decision rather than a potentially alienated spouse. Or if he is single he should be able to specify someone who would have the same rights as a spouse in a medical situation.

And yes, insurance benefits to spouses discriminates against single people. They are in effect being paid less for doing the same job.

 

[Weezer]

Last time I checked, there was no big movement in this country to suppress the gay vote, lynch gay people, or enslave gay people.

There does seem to be a big movement to suppress gay rights. Gay people have been killed simply for being gay. Having to hide who you truly are is a form of slavery unto itself. As I previously stated, the struggles of blacks were better documented because you can't hide your skin color. You can pretend to be someone you're not if it keeps you alive. There are stories of Jews who successfully hid they were Jewish during WWII. Sometimes, you do what you have to do just to survive.

 

[volprof]

I think an individual should be able to assign rights as he pleases. For instance to specify who makes medical care decisions. Maybe he prefers his brother, father, or a friend to make that decision rather than a potentially alienated spouse. Or if he is single he should be able to specify someone who would have the same rights as a spouse in a medical situation.

And yes, insurance benefits to spouses discriminates against single people. They are in effect being paid less for doing the same job.

I fully agree. I guess we just depart ways on the business-customer issue mentioned earlier.

 

[Lexvol]

I think there are two areas that warrant discussion if we make this an sociological/theological argument (even though I contend that the mayors in Chicago, Boston and Frisco have made this 100% political by interjecting their personal values into the argument). In doing so, I don't think it is a stretch to contend that they have actually instituting a religion (based on their own values) from a government pulpit.

1. There is little doubt in my mind that Christians have placed a special emphasis on "sexual sin". For me the model of Christ represents one thing: freedom of individual choice. Placing individual emphasis or creating a hierarchy of sins is the work of his followers. I don't think he ever really made the distinction between sins (other than blaspheming the Holy Spirit) . That is a different discussion for a different day. Instead his message was mostly very positive. It wasn't a list of don'ts....it was a list of do's.

Modern day Christians have bastardized the message in the very same way that the Pharisees did during Christ's lifetime. Christianity as a movement was not about institutionalization. I think it is just the opposite. It is about the freedom of the individual to love their neighbor as they love themselves.


2. On the flip side I think that most homosexuals struggle with their own biology. While they search for normalcy in society, I don't think they will ever really find it. They will always feel different regardless of any type of social affirmation. I realize that is a broad generalization, but that is how I feel about the movement as a whole.