toldailytopic: Will you eat at Chick-fil-A knowing they support traditional marriage?

[Angel4Truth]

It's beyond that. If an elected official is blocking a business from getting a license because of that business owner's right to free speech, then that is a clear and direct abuse of the office they hold.

This ^

 

[noguru]

Clearly democracy is not perfect nor free from corruption but all we can do as individuals is to recognise who is failing us and get rid of them. Local politics can be highly complex imo and we'd need to understand the whole local picture which clearly as a Brit I don't for CFA or America generally and don't pretend I do.

There are some things that are an obvious violation of constitutional rights. If the scenario is as I stated it, then that is an obvious violation. The state or local officials cannot just decide to violate our constitutional rights. Those are our minimum rights guaranteed by the Federal Government. The states or local government are not allowed to make laws or follow policy that violates those rights. It is rather simple. I suspect this case will either get to the State or Federal supreme court, if the prospective owner wants to pursue that.

 

[MaryContrary]

That's all very interesting Mary but...:liberals::idunno:

Yes I vote, so what? Either way here (UK) the church doesn't seek to impose any specifically Christian values on secular society thankfully.
If churches don't want to be involved in gay ceremonies then that's fair enough they shouldn't have to imo. But secular laws forbidding such ceremonies based on a particular religious view alone would be an unwelcome theocracy imposed on many otherwise law abiding people regardless of what you suppose to be "just and right"?

First, we're not talking about forbidding a ceremony. Recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman is not forbidding a ceremony. You could still have whatever ceremony you like, it just wouldn't be recognized by the state. We're talking about the state recognizing and providing benefits to a particular relationship status. That sort of thing is quite appropriate for people to vote on.

Second, in voting on such a matter it's quite appropriate for people to determine their vote based on whatever the hell they like. Who are you to say they can't base that on their religious beliefs? How do you expect to determine who is voting based on their religious beliefs and who is not in the first place? Or "derived (mindlessly?) from an ancient scripture", as you've characterized it. Whatever.

Third, and to the original point that seemed to confuse you, this would not in any way be "wanting the government to tell you what is right and wrong". Unless you'd care to explain how any law forbidding, allowing or recognizing anything at all is likewise, then I suggest you're not thinking clearly on this issue. And even more to the point, hold that as evidence that my vote on this issue would clearly be more appropriate, having been thought out carefully and arrived upon rationally. And, as if it mattered a hoot in hell, not even based on any particular religious belief in the first place. Where as yours seems disturbingly rooted in bigoted thinking, misunderstanding the concept of freedom of religion and essentially just being irrational about it.

Still, you don't see me or anyone else telling you that you can't vote because we don't agree with how you decided to vote. :idunno:

Wrong, you simply want whatever you have decided is just and right, albeit derived (mindlessly?) from an ancient scripture, imposed on all, including those of us who dare to decide our own relative morality.

So, yes. I vote. Just like you. And I no more or less impose my vote on everyone else than you do when you vote. What I base my vote on is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I have the right to vote. I'll thank you not to seek to deny me the right to vote based purely on your not agreeing with how I vote. Just as I extend the same courtesy to you.

@OP
If Chick-fil-A chooses to present a discriminatory view rather than simply remain neutral then presumably that goes down rather well in some parts of the US, boosting their profits no doubt. But it's really no good them then whining if that same view is counter-productive and causes bad feelings elsewhere.
I would probably eat in a CFA if it was good food unless they openly disapproved of non-Christians and atheists when I would consider myself personally to be unwelcome.

I agree with all this. Business owners should be able to have, hold and proclaim whatever views and beliefs they like. And their customers should have the right to base their determination whether to do business based on whatever they like.

Governments, however, should consult the people when determining what policies and laws they implement. People like me and you.

 

[PureX]

I see, its ok to violate the constitution and its ok to deny free speech and freedom of religion, when YOU agree with it.

I actually agree with you on this point regarding Rahm Emanuel in Chicago; if he does try to keep the Chich-Fil-A company out of Chicago based on the company CEO's political opinions being contrary to the Mayor's. But is that actually happening? Or was Emanuel just blowing hot air as politicians are inclined to do?

I did, however, agree with Mayor Daley of Chicago when he refused to allow Walmart into the city based on their treatment of their employees, vendors, and the communities they inhabit. But that was different. In that case the Mayor was protecting the citizens from predatory and exploitive business practices.

 

[bybee]

I actually agree with you on this point regarding Rahm Emanuel in Chicago; if he does try to keep the Chich-Fil-A company out of Chicago based on the company CEO's political opinions being contrary to the Mayor's. But is that actually happening? Or was Emanuel just blowing hot air as politicians are inclined to do?

I did, however, agree with Mayor Daley of Chicago when he refused to allow Walmart into the city based on their treatment of their employees, vendors, and the communities they inhabit. But that was different. In that case the Mayor was protecting the citizens from predatory and exploitive business practices.

Riiiiiiight! just a bit of steam by one of the "Good old boys!"
But, oh how different the response when it is one of the conservative bad guys....

 

[PureX]

Riiiiiiight! just a bit of steam by one of the "Good old boys!"
But, oh how different the response when it is one of the conservative bad guys....

Oh, give it a rest!

I said I agreed. I said I think he's wrong. And I said why I think so. Why can't you just accept that?

 

[bybee]

Oh, give it a rest!

I said I agreed. I said I think he's wrong. And I said why I think so. Why can't you just accept that?

Just let me know when you are resting in your hammock and then, I might give it a rest?
You get to initiate snideness and then, when called on it you say "Give it a rest"?
N-o-t a c-h-a-n-c-e!:ha:

 

[Lee52]

If I were not living in Germany I would go have a Chick-fil-A sandwich and fries for supper!

I don't care about the owner's politics or faith statement. I fight for every American's right to speak freely in an open society. If his food products are free of diseases, taste good and are reasonably priced I will eat there.

One of my favorite restaurants is on 8th SE in DC just up from USMC 8th & I. It is owned, operated, staffed by gays and has a gay piano bar above the restaurant.

As a born-again Christian, I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions with exactly the same rights, just not the same name. One, marriage should be a function of faith. The other, civil unions, should be a legal matter.

 

[MaryContrary]

As a born-again Christian, I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions with exactly the same rights, just not the same name. One, marriage should be a function of faith. The other, civil unions, should be a legal matter.

That makes no sense.

If you recognize that gay "unions" are wrong, then you should not be supporting them. If you don't then you have no reason to refuse them the banner of "marriage".

I think you're best argument here would be that you recognize they have the right to form gay unions under whatever rights your government extends to its people. But even then you should disagree that the government should extend that right in the first place. I think, for example, that in my country a case could be made for the government recognizing gay unions. They need only make the case that they are beneficial to society and should be recognized and encouraged, just as marriage is. Where I would disagree is that they are beneficial to society, not necessarily that the government should recognize and encourage something that is beneficial in that way.

 

[Lee52]

That makes no sense.

If you recognize that gay "unions" are wrong, then you should not be supporting them. If you don't then you have no reason to refuse them the banner of "marriage".

Jesus did not give any Christian the authority to make anyone live according to any of our beliefs. Jesus came and said many, many things against religious leaders of that time period for causing others to live according to their mandates. Let's not go there again.

Here is the deal about sin. I cannot make you NOT sin. GOD could make you not sin, but GOD would rather you not sin by choice because it is not the lifestyle GOD created you to have and leaves that choice, those choices to you, everyone, me. He gave us His standard of behavior on this earth and created us with a free will to choose. Nobody will have an excuse when we stand before Him in eternity after we leave this earth. We were given the guidelines and the choice. We will be judged by Him alone on our choices.

 

[PureX]

Just let me know when you are resting in your hammock and then, I might give it a rest?
You get to initiate snideness and then, when called on it you say "Give it a rest"?
N-o-t a c-h-a-n-c-e!:ha:

I wasn't being snide at all! I just pointed out that I agreed, and why.

What's with you, today?

 

[bybee]

I wasn't being snide at all! I just pointed out that I agreed, and why.

What's with you, today?

I believe it is the "humorous" political pictures you so blithely displayed.
They annoyed me.
Small thing.
I'm over it.
I still like you.
Hope you still like me?

 

[noguru]

I believe it is the "humorous" political pictures you so blithely displayed.
They annoyed me.
Small thing.
I'm over it.
I still like you.
Hope you still like me?

There you are with another vocabulary word for me. Thanks bybee. I love that about you.

 

[Town Heretic]

That makes no sense.

If you recognize that gay "unions" are wrong, then you should not be supporting them. If you don't then you have no reason to refuse them the banner of "marriage".

I think you're best argument here would be that you recognize they have the right to form gay unions under whatever rights your government extends to its people. But even then you should disagree that the government should extend that right in the first place.

We disagree then. I don't believe the state should distinguish with differing titles. It invites discriminatory practice. And I disagree with you on the state extending as an idea... The right to contract is already extended. The state would only be withdrawing its abrogation of a specific contract. And you can believe that it should as a matter of reflecting the nature of our social compact, which is a secular one, without rejecting your moral position on the sinful aspect of it.

Lastly, the homosexual union shouldn't have to produce proof that it benefits the state any more than a heterosexual should. The right to contract, or own property, or speak your mind doesn't exist to serve or benefit the state, though they can. I can speak against the state or enter into a horribly destructive marriage or buy property that would be a great place for a park and build statue of me surrounded by "No tresspassing! This means YOU!" signs.

Now stable unions tend to produce happier people and happier people tend to be more productive and better citizens, but that's gravy. It's a gravy the state recognizes, which is why it encourages it. It does so even for childless couples (to nip that one in the bud).

 

[PureX]

I believe it is the "humorous" political pictures you so blithely displayed.
They annoyed me.
Small thing.
I'm over it.
I still like you.
Hope you still like me?

It would take WAY more than a few odd posts to deter my appreciation of you! I promise!

 

[alwight]

First, we're not talking about forbidding a ceremony. Recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman is not forbidding a ceremony. You could still have whatever ceremony you like, it just wouldn't be recognized by the state. We're talking about the state recognizing and providing benefits to a particular relationship status. That sort of thing is quite appropriate for people to vote on.

Yes and as a secularist I too am somewhat interested in any social benefit that encouraging a traditional heterosexual marriage may give society but at the same time discriminating against those who don't want a heterosexual relationship is not reasonable imo.
However my own view is based on a what I perceive as a practical benefit to society while I suspect yours is based simply on a strict adherence to an ancient scripture, and then to have it imposed on people who don't.

Second, in voting on such a matter it's quite appropriate for people to determine their vote based on whatever the hell they like. Who are you to say they can't base that on their religious beliefs? How do you expect to determine who is voting based on their religious beliefs and who is not in the first place? Or "derived (mindlessly?) from an ancient scripture", as you've characterized it. Whatever.

It doesn't matter to me particularly how individuals decide how to vote, that isn't the point. What I am saying is that civilised secular majorities should not need to impose their non-secular views on minorities just because they can control the levers of powers.
Where do you get the idea from that you have a right to impose on minorities your ideas of marriage or morality particularly when clearly all could have what they wanted given a bit of understanding and tolerance?
IOW, you should live your life and let them live theirs, but simply being in a majority and winning a secular vote doesn't somehow justify or make your doctrinal view right and proper. :AMR:

Third, and to the original point that seemed to confuse you, this would not in any way be "wanting the government to tell you what is right and wrong". Unless you'd care to explain how any law forbidding, allowing or recognizing anything at all is likewise, then I suggest you're not thinking clearly on this issue. And even more to the point, hold that as evidence that my vote on this issue would clearly be more appropriate, having been thought out carefully and arrived upon rationally. And, as if it mattered a hoot in hell, not even based on any particular religious belief in the first place. Where as yours seems disturbingly rooted in bigoted thinking, misunderstanding the concept of freedom of religion and essentially just being irrational about it.

Sorry but you rather lost me again here.
Hopefully I have covered my response sufficiently above?
I simply don't accept that you have shown anything other than a dogmatic religious belief is involved here, but if you have laid out proper secular rational reasoning somewhere then it seems to have escaped my attention, please do cite it.
Apparently though you are now claiming that I am being bigoted for not tolerating your bigoted intolerance of homosexuals.:think:
So shoot me.

Still, you don't see me or anyone else telling you that you can't vote because we don't agree with how you decided to vote. :idunno:

Again you seem to think that by winning a democratic vote somehow makes you right, it doesn't of course it only puts you in charge.

So, yes. I vote. Just like you. And I no more or less impose my vote on everyone else than you do when you vote. What I base my vote on is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I have the right to vote. I'll thank you not to seek to deny me the right to vote based purely on your not agreeing with how I vote. Just as I extend the same courtesy to you.
I agree with all this. Business owners should be able to have, hold and proclaim whatever views and beliefs they like. And their customers should have the right to base their determination whether to do business based on whatever they like.

Governments, however, should consult the people when determining what policies and laws they implement. People like me and you.

Except Mary that when you win that vote and get put in charge (heaven forbid) you will apparently not even consider tolerating or allowing for other (gay?) lifestyles, which would probably only be an abuse of power imo, not right and proper.

 

[highlife]

I dont eat there but thats because I dont like their food.

 

[MaryContrary]

Jesus did not give any Christian the authority to make anyone live according to any of our beliefs. Jesus came and said many, many things against religious leaders of that time period for causing others to live according to their mandates. Let's not go there again.

Because those "mandates" were wrong. Or are you going to argue against government entirely based on this logic?

Here is the deal about sin. I cannot make you NOT sin. GOD could make you not sin, but GOD would rather you not sin by choice because it is not the lifestyle GOD created you to have and leaves that choice, those choices to you, everyone, me. He gave us His standard of behavior on this earth and created us with a free will to choose. Nobody will have an excuse when we stand before Him in eternity after we leave this earth. We were given the guidelines and the choice. We will be judged by Him alone on our choices.

This does not in any way answer the question. Are gay unions wrong or not? If not, then I can understand why you support them. If they are, then I can't understand why you don't support traditional marriage.

 

[MaryContrary]

We disagree then. I don't believe the state should distinguish with differing titles. It invites discriminatory practice. And I disagree with you on the state extending as an idea... The right to contract is already extended. The state would only be withdrawing its abrogation of a specific contract. And you can believe that it should as a matter of reflecting the nature of our social compact, which is a secular one, without rejecting your moral position on the sinful aspect of it.

Lastly, the homosexual union shouldn't have to produce proof that it benefits the state any more than a heterosexual should. The right to contract, or own property, or speak your mind doesn't exist to serve or benefit the state, though they can. I can speak against the state or enter into a horribly destructive marriage or buy property that would be a great place for a park and build statue of me surrounded by "No tresspassing! This means YOU!" signs.

Now stable unions tend to produce happier people and happier people tend to be more productive and better citizens, but that's gravy. It's a gravy the state recognizes, which is why it encourages it. It does so even for childless couples (to nip that one in the bud).

You agree that government can and should encourage stable unions but disagree with government discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual, correct? Because you either see or assume both are equally as capable of forming stable unions. Or, at the very least, any difference there is acceptable in the interests of avoiding unjust discrimination. Right?

But what if homosexual unions do not produce stable unions? Or if, stable or not, still destructive in some other manner? How can we know without examining this question? That's hardly discriminatory! We already have every other imaginable union that is not recognized and encouraged for precisely that reason. We are not allowed to marry our siblings, for example. How is this not likewise unacceptably discriminatory?

You assume homosexual unions can be as stable and healthy as heterosexual unions. What if they were not capable of that? Would your opinion here change at all?

 

[Granite]

You agree that government can and should encourage stable unions but disagree with government discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual, correct? Because you either see or assume both are equally as capable of forming stable unions. Or, at the very least, any difference there is acceptable in the interests of avoiding unjust discrimination. Right?

But what if homosexual unions do not produce stable unions? Or if, stable or not, still destructive in some other manner? How can we know without examining this question? That's hardly discriminatory! We already have every other imaginable union that is not recognized and encouraged for precisely that reason. We are not allowed to marry our siblings, for example. How is this not likewise unacceptably discriminatory?

You assume homosexual unions can be as stable and healthy as heterosexual unions. What if they were not capable of that? Would your opinion here change at all?

Given the heterosexual divorce rate in this country one could make a case that such marriages are "unstable." Fifty-fifty odds? Not good.