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

[utvolpj]

Everyone opposed to homosexual marriage is not religious.

the vast majority are

 

[Vols520]

The ***s are taking our jobs!!!

Wake up America!!!

 

[Vols520]

What I'm saying is basing such a moral code on the beliefs of people living 2000 years ago and thinking it is the end all answer doesn't make sense. We have come a long way over two millennia. Why keep regressing? What exactly is harmful about homosexuality?

...a rhetorical question of course.

It's harmful to your butthole.

 

[Thrasher865]

ost-4-1090547912: Didn't see that one coming!!! (I mean absolutely no disrespect here, that really did catch me off guard lol.)

My belief, as a Christian, is that I am supposed to do what I can, when I can, to convey the message that we are saved by grace. Believing in Christ and accepting him as your savior is the way to heaven. God forgives all sin, when you ask for forgiveness. I am a sinner. I will never be a perfect Christian. And I fail daily, regardless of how hard I try. It's because I'm human. And that is also why God loves me as his own.

And I have to say, the firefighter thing still has me laughing. I don't know if you were making fun of me or not, but that was awesome!

And I read a note in an email this morning that said if I didn't tell everyone dearest to me to forward it to 10 people by midnight, they would die a torturous, slow death. So, here I am. Send this to 10 people by midnight, VG!!

 

[volinbham]

To me treat is the key word. I view it the same way a racist (actions) vs being prejudice (thoughts).

I think action is definitely stronger but as the definition says - regards or treats

 

[volinbham]

the vast majority are

the vast majority of people are religious or at least believe in God.

 

[utvolpj]

the vast majority of people are religious or at least believe in God.

pretty big difference in those 2 wouldn't you say?

 

[vol_in_ar]

Try a spicy chicken bagel with egg and cheese

+1 had one this morning

 

[volinbham]

pretty big difference in those 2 wouldn't you say?

definitely a continuum.

I'm pretty far towards one end of that continuum.

 

[utvolpj]

definitely a continuum.

I'm pretty far towards one end of that continuum.

probably should clarify that I view the "religious" as someone who would start their argument against gay marriage with "the Bible/God/Jesus says..."

I also think it's ridiculous to argue based on votes because a large part of the population doesn't really care what others do. Only the activists on either side seem to be so passionate that they would show up

 

[volinbham]

I also think it's ridiculous to argue based on votes because a large part of the population doesn't really care what others do. Only the activists on either side seem to be so passionate that they would show up

But how should it be decided then? Ultimately as a populace we decided (through our elected officials) to have the Federal government convey certain benefits on a particular type of relationship and stamp a particular name on it.

So far as I can see there is no inherent right to these benefits/name - it is a society created notion. Seems then it would need to be changed by society (and it is - just not quickly enough for some).

 

[utvolpj]

in the past we haven't left similar things up to a state to vote on (like civil rights). Of course that would then require elected officials that are smarter than the average HS soph so we're kinda stuck. Since neither can be relied upon just remove it from govt's hands altogether and be done with it

 

[volinbham]

in the past we haven't left similar things up to a state to vote on (like civil rights). Of course that would then require elected officials that are smarter than the average HS soph so we're kinda stuck. Since neither can be relied upon just remove it from govt's hands altogether and be done with it

I don't see this as a civil rights issue on a scale anywhere near what you are referencing. In effect we are talking about contract law and the parameters of contracts that receive some sanction by the government.

It's also not necessarily about individual rights - it is about privileges conveyed to a group based upon some contract which they enter into. Ultimately no person is prevented from entering into that contract so long as they agree to the parameters of the contract. Gay people do not agree to the parameters of the contract (understandably so) but they are not prevented from entering the contract should they so desire.

That said, I have no problem with changing the parameters of the contract but if the people aren't the ultimate arbiter of the parameters I don't know who is. I think you have to look pretty hard and sideways at the Constitution to find a right to marriage let alone a right to gay marriage but somehow not a right to polygamy.

 

[SamRebel35]

It seems like a lot of inferences are being made about this man's beliefs. Everybody is so quick to label people like this as a "bigot" without knowing his belief system on a deeper level. Can I get a formal definition of "anti gay" so that I can see how it applies to anything this man said?

The same thing happens all the time in the racial arena. If I think that affirmative action should not exist, I am labeled "anti black". Nobody cares about the reasoning for having that belief. Just that affirmative action is "pro black" so if you are opposed, then you must be "anti black".

 

[volinbham]

It seems like a lot of inferences are being made about this man's beliefs. Everybody is so quick to label people like this as a "bigot" without knowing his belief system on a deeper level. Can I get a formal definition of "anti gay" so that I can see how it applies to anything this man said?

The same thing happens all the time in the racial arena. If I think that affirmative action should not exist, I am labeled "anti black". Nobody cares about the reasoning for having that belief. Just that affirmative action is "pro black" so if you are opposed, then you must be "anti black".

I agree. Simply having the opinion that marriage is contract between a man and a woman is an opinion on what a social institution is.

If he thinks gay people are inferior, defective, etc. then he's moving into bigotry.

 

[utvolpj]

I don't see this as a civil rights issue on a scale anywhere near what you are referencing. In effect we are talking about contract law and the parameters of contracts that receive some sanction by the government.

I really don't put it on the same level as the 1960's push for civil rights but it is similar IMO.

It's also not necessarily about individual rights - it is about privileges conveyed to a group based upon some contract which they enter into. Ultimately no person is prevented from entering into that contract so long as they agree to the parameters of the contract. Gay people do not agree to the parameters of the contract (understandably so) but they are not prevented from entering the contract should they so desire.

how is it not about individual rights. Yes they are rights given to couples but it's still individuals being prevented from it. Not sure I agree with the "sorry guy, marry a chick and all is well" idea. They are denied solely on sexual orientation and that is mainly driven by religious belief in the Bible (we could argue what % but it's still a very large one).

That said, I have no problem with changing the parameters of the contract but if the people aren't the ultimate arbiter of the parameters I don't know who is. I think you have to look pretty hard and sideways at the Constitution to find a right to marriage let alone a right to gay marriage but somehow not a right to polygamy.

if it's not in the Constitution then the govt should quit trying to mess with it. Either every consenting adult gets the same treatment or none do. IMO that applies to polygamy as well. Heck, lawyers should be all over this

 

[volinbham]

I don't put it on the same level as the 1960's push for civil rights but it is similar IMO.



how is it not about individual rights. Yes they are rights given to couples but it's still individuals being prevented from it. Not sure I agree with the "sorry guy, marry a chick and all is well" idea. They are denied solely on sexual orientation and that is mainly driven by religious belief in the Bible (we could argue what % but it's still a very large one).

My point is that what they are being denied is a set of government benefits based upon entry into a contract. They are not barred from entering into that contract.

Personally I agree that we should only have civil unions and leave the "marriage" part to independent organizations but that ain't never gonna happen.



if it's not in the Constitution then the govt should quit trying to mess with it. Either every consenting adult gets the same treatment or none do. IMO that applies to polygamy as well. Heck, lawyers should be all over this

I tend to agree but as referenced above I think the equal treatment stuff is based around individuals not pairs of individuals.

Parents get benefits. I'm not a parent. I can follow the definition of parent and gain the benefit but I have to make a choice and I don't want to make that choice. If I do not choose to enter into the parental contract I do not get the parental benefits. Not the greatest analogy but it fits the distinction between an inherent civil right and a set of privileges society conveys on certain situations via government.

Ultimately, I believe the "marriage vs civil union" debate comes down to the desire by each group to have a societal stamp of approval on the relationship - the symbolic meaning.

 

[utvolpj]

definitely agree the name is a key part of the argument

and I've yet to see much of a benefit from the govt for having a kid. The money I get to claim covers about 2 weeks worth of child care. Woohoo

 

[SamRebel35]

definitely agree the name is a key part of the argument

and I've yet to see much of a benefit from the govt for having a kid. The money I get to claim covers about 2 weeks worth of child care. Woohoo

I think the problem is that you were too responsible and only had enough chitlins that you could properly raise. Serves you right. No free gov'ment check for you.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Chick-Fil-A made a pretty smart move here, actually. My promoting intolerance and bigotry, you're playing to your target demographic. Hell, look how many people are poised to visit Chick-Fil-A for its "appreciation day" via Mike Huckabee's Facebook event. The vast majority of Chick-Fil-A's customers either don't care enough about prejudice inflicted upon gay people to stop eating there or find that it lines up perfectly with their religious, political and world views.

In turn, there are a lot of people who won't eat at Chick-Fil-A anymore... but never really did in the first place. Chick-Fil-A is a staple of the bible belt and Heartland, but how many blue state residents really eat there? Washington, Oregon, and Connecticut have zero locations, Massachusetts and New Hampshire represent the two stores in New England, New York and the District of Columbia each have one and there are very few located in NorCal.

I think that the views of the Cathy family and Chick-Fil-A as a whole about this issue and other similar situations are embarrassingly antiquated, but you're trying to earn the business of a bunch of people who think that a floating man in the sky should dictate laws in the United States. So, in that sense, Chick-Fil-A might as well stick to their guns on this.

You're trying to hard...

 

[PKT_VOL]

Homosexuality always turns into a religious debate. Everyone opposed to homosexual marriage is not religious.

There is a big difference between being opposed to it personally and being opposed to it legally. Someone can be personally against gay marraige but be for it or not opposed to it legally.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Polygyny, polyandry, group marriage and the like are all inherently different from gay marriage. Marriage in the United States has a collection of legal benefits which directly link together two parties; when three or more parties are involved, the issues of inheritance, responsibility status and whatnot do not remain the same.

Gay marriage is the exact same contract as "traditional marriage," except binding two people of the same gender.

You obviously missed the story I linked where California is considering a law to allow a child to have more than 2 parents. How do handle a custody dispute if those people are fighting it out?

 

[n_huffhines]

in the recent past we haven't left similar things up to a state to vote on (like civil rights). Of course that would then require elected officials that are smarter than the average HS soph so we're kinda stuck. Since neither can be relied upon just remove it from govt's hands altogether and be done with it

fyp

 

[orangesparkles]

ost-4-1090547912: Didn't see that one coming!!! (I mean absolutely no disrespect here, that really did catch me off guard lol.)

My belief, as a Christian, is that I am supposed to do what I can, when I can, to convey the message that we are saved by grace. Believing in Christ and accepting him as your savior is the way to heaven. God forgives all sin, when you ask for forgiveness. I am a sinner. I will never be a perfect Christian. And I fail daily, regardless of how hard I try. It's because I'm human. And that is also why God loves me as his own.

And I have to say, the firefighter thing still has me laughing. I don't know if you were making fun of me or not, but that was awesome!

I should clarify that I don't think Christians or any religious group is entirely composed of bad people, just as seculars cannot be categorically defined as good or evil. Christians take many different paths towards spreading God's word, and I can understand that your personal beliefs make you feel as if you should be trying to put people on the path to God.

Unfortunately, I consider your beliefs regarding homosexuals and gay marriage to be bigoted. This does not make you a bad person; as someone who doesn't believe in a higher power, I have a much easier time placing the civil liberties of others in front of my non-existent religion. Because I don't believe in any religion, I see this simply as an issue of civil rights. In 50 years time, I can't help but assume that America will look back upon the issue of gay-marriage much like we currently do on segregation and women's suffrage and think "seriously?" Bigotry still exists towards women and minorities in this country, of course, but the idea of denying them fundamental civil liberties now seems like such a fringe theory that you can't help but ignore someone who feels that way.

Bigotry does not require trying to prevent someone from practicing their beliefs. It is about your own tolerance/intolerance for others viewpoints. It's pretty clear you think people that believe in religion are dumb, weak minded, inferior in some way.

That is the definition of bigotry.

I understand the first point you're making, but the definitions of tolerance and bigotry you're using seems like a bit of a stretch in this case.

Based on your wording, every Volunteer fan is bigoted against Vanderbilt and Alabama fans. Do most actually hate them as people and desire to restrict their rights based on their allegiance? No. But, if someone who supports the rights of religious individuals without actually thinking they're right is bigoted, then so are all sports fans.

By your definition, a person displays bigotry every time they think someone is wrong because, in that situational context, you naturally think they're "dumber" than you are because you consider yourself to be right. This is obviously an oversimplification, as bigotry is a much bigger issue than "agreeing to disagree."

Homosexuality always turns into a religious debate. Everyone opposed to homosexual marriage is not religious.

Everyone opposed to gay marriage is not religious but, as PJ stated, the vast majority are. I fundamentally disagree with religion's point of view regarding homosexuality and still do maintain that such views are bigoted, but at least they stem from a belief system. Although they exist, general believers in a higher power who don't ascribe to any religion in particular that still oppose gay marriage are few and far between. Frankly, it becomes a lot harder to justify an anti gay-marriage stance if you don't believe in a religion that condemns such behavior.

You're trying to hard...

Constructive response. Really added a lot to the discourse.

You obviously missed the story I linked where California is considering a law to allow a child to have more than 2 parents. How do handle a custody dispute if those people are fighting it out?

In that case, you base custody off of the best interest for the child. But, have fun figuring out how to do that with 16 parents.

 

[volinbham]

I understand the first point you're making, but the definitions of tolerance and bigotry you're using seems like a bit of a stretch in this case.

Based on your wording, every Volunteer fan is bigoted against Vanderbilt and Alabama fans. Do most actually hate them as people and desire to restrict their rights based on their allegiance? No. But, if someone who supports the rights of religious individuals without actually thinking they're right is bigoted, then so are all sports fans.

By your definition, a person displays bigotry every time they think someone is wrong because, in that situational context, you naturally think they're "dumber" than you are because you consider yourself to be right. This is obviously an oversimplification, as bigotry is a much bigger issue than "agreeing to disagree."

It's not my definition - it's the one I posted. It's not about disagreeing - it's making negative attributions about someone because they belong to a group. I believe in God; you don't. No bigotry there. If you think people who believe in God are weak-minded simply because they hold that belief then your are moving down the path. If you mock, denigrate, those who are religious because you think they are weak-minded, dumb, dangerous, etc. then you are have bigotry towards religion.

If I don't like Bama fans that's one thing. If I really believe being a Bama fan makes you literally dumber and that mere membership in that group makes you an inferior person in some way then you are taking fandom into bigotry.

For the record, I rarely think people are dumber than me if they hold a different viewpoint - case in point you and I.

Again - go look at the definition. It is about intolerance of groups of people because of some characteristic of the group. Agreeing to disagree is tolerance. Mocking the beliefs on those you disagree with and genuinely thinking they are inferior in some way is intolerance and bigotry.

To turn it around to your definition - Cathy is not bigot because he simply disagrees with you about gay marriage.