Muppets bash Chick-fil-A over owners faith

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Annee

 

They already have EQUAL RIGHTS, they have all the rights of hetero married couples....

This is news to me.

Me too.

People have to actually educate themselves - - - - to know they are believing lies and propaganda.

Really? then educate us, what rights do they NOT have that married couples do?

I'll cut to the chase and reveal the answers.

All human beings have the SAME RIGHTS no matter what!
They are born with them naturally and they are inalienable.

The Bill of Rights does not give us our rights nor does it list all of them, but what it does is prohibit the government from trampling many of them by restricting the government's judicial and legislative powers.

Prohibiting or restricting anyone's liberty (to make marriage contracts) is unconstitutional, as is the licensing scheme and the tax code itself.

That's why the entire debate is out of context and is being used to manipulate people into unknowingly waiving their rights through contracts with the state.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Annee

 

They already have EQUAL RIGHTS, they have all the rights of hetero married couples....

This is news to me.

Me too.

People have to actually educate themselves - - - - to know they are believing lies and propaganda.

Really? then educate us, what rights do they NOT have that married couples do?

I'll cut to the chase and reveal the answers.

All human beings have the SAME RIGHTS no matter what!
They are born with them naturally and they are inalienable.

The Bill of Rights does not give us our rights nor does it list all of them, but what it does is prohibit the government from trampling many of them by restricting the government's judicial and legislative powers.

Prohibiting or restricting anyone's liberty (to make marriage contracts) is unconstitutional, as is the licensing scheme and the tax code itself.

That's why the entire debate is out of context and is being used to manipulate people into unknowingly waiving their rights through contracts with the state.

I agree with you 100% and if I were arguing purely from an ideological standpoint I would argue why we have institutionalized marriage to begin with, but I'm speaking from a pragmatic perspective on society when I say they should have equal marriage rights as any hetero couple does. There shouldn't be any government allowance of rights related to marriage to begin with, but there is and to change society in such a matter than it doesn't would take a cataclysmic event to trigger.

Originally posted by SpectreDC


At a more local level, civil unions do not grant immunity from being made to testify against your partner, the ability ot speak for them (in medical and legal terms) when they cannor speak for themselves, the right to be informed of the medical condition of one's partner in a medical emergency, the right to inherit,

No one can force you to testify. You can be contemptuous and refuse to speak.

Also please look at this information:

A power of attorney (POA) or letter of attorney is a written authorization to represent or act on another's behalf in private affairs, business, or some other legal matter. The person authorizing the other to act is the principal, grantor, or donor (of the power), and the one authorized to act is the agent, donee, or attorney[1] or, in some common law jurisdictions, the attorney-in-fact. Formerly, a power referred to an instrument under seal while a letter was an instrument under hand, but today both are under hand (i.e., signed by the donor), and therefore there is no difference between the two.

Power of Attorney Wiki

Depending on the jurisdiction, a power of attorney may be oral and whether witnessed or not, will hold up in court, the same as if it were in writing.[3] For some purposes, the law requires a power of attorney to be in writing. Many institutions, such as hospitals, banks and, in the United States, the Internal Revenue Service, require a power of attorney to be in writing before they will honor it, and they will usually keep an original copy for their records.

Appears that you can grant anyone power of attorney.

That's a right we are all born with, by the way.
The right to waive our rights to someone else.

Shut Down Chick-fil-A Properly

James Peron - 07/25/2012

I am about as opposed to buying food from Chick-fil-A as one can get. It is proper to boycott them. A portion of their profits have been regularly used by the owners to subsidize some of the most vicious, extreme religious groups in this country. Buying chicken at this establishment helps fund hate. I won't do it.

I want to emphasize that latter point: this is hate. Fundamentalists, entirely on the basis of their own idiosyncratic interpretation of old manuscripts, are obsessed with denying equality of rights to the LGBT community.

Disliking broccoli is an opinion. Even disliking gay people is an opinion -- albeit a stupid one. However, the moment individuals demand that the rights of others be violated it becomes full-fledged hate. Of course, they claim they "love," but how does their love differ, in results, from that of the people who are clear and open haters?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Why A Power Of Attorney Is No Substitute For Marriage When A Loved One Is In The Hospital

. . . . as I understand it, are legal papers: health care proxies, power of attorney, and so forth. But in practice, lesbian and gay couples have found again and again that legal papers aren’t reliable when they’re needed most.

For example, Sharon Reed and JoAnn Ritchie, partners for 17 years, had mutual power of attorney when JoAnn went to the hospital; they even had the paperwork with them. That didn’t keep a nurse who disapproved of lesbian relationships from refusing Sharon access to JoAnn’s room and bedside. JoAnn’s final conscious hours were spent without Sharon; by the time Sharon was allowed back into the room, the next day, JoAnn couldn’t be revived. JoAnn died not long after.

Another example: Janice Langbehn and Lisa Marie Pond and their children were on vacation in Florida when Lisa had an aneurysm. They each had granted the other power of attorney, but the Florida hospital chose not to recognize it for eight hours. For eight hours, Lisa lay dying alone in the hospital, while her spouse and children were forbidden contact with her. The usual counseling services that the hospital routinely provides for relatives of dying patients, were not offered to Lisa’s family. “Jackson Memorial social worker Defendant Frederick approached Janice and informed her that she should not expect to be provided any information on the condition of, or have the ability to be with Lisa Marie as they were in an ‘anti-gay city and state.’”

There are many more examples. Kristin Orbin and Teresa Rowe. Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson. Carol Conklin and Janet Peck. Bill Flanigan and Robert Daniel. Trey and Guy. Steve, forced into a sham marriage with a woman who robbed him, just to have control of his own medical treatment.

According to lgbt rights advocate Carissa Cunningham, these are not rare, isolated examples. “It’s very routine. It happens all the time.”

www.amptoons.com...

Muppets? Freaking Muppets? And Chick-a-fil?!? This is what you people are arguing over for a double-digit number of pages? You have got ti be kidding me. Meanwhile half the planet is in the most serious drought in decades, World War III is around the corner, and the global economy is teetering in the edge of obliteration.

This is why America is declining; it's become a nation of narcissists and whining special interest groups whose central focus is victimhood and a nonstop obsession with "taking offense". (I include both Christians and gays in this criticism.) Pull your heads out of your rears and get a sense of perspective. This is simply not a big deal however you cut it.

reply to post by Annee


abcnews.go.com...

Patients at nearly every hospital in the country will now be allowed to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf -- regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or family makeup -- under new federal regulations that took effect Tuesday.

that was Jan. 11, 2011.... your behind in the times

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Annee

 

abcnews.go.com...

Patients at nearly every hospital in the country will now be allowed to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf -- regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or family makeup -- under new federal regulations that took effect Tuesday.

that was Jan. 11, 2011.... your behind in the times

I follow this stuff/subject on a daily basis. I am not behind the times.

This stuff still continues. Especially in homophobic areas. Nurses can and do pull rank for religious reasons.

And with homophobic judges - - it's easy to nullify legal papers because an "i" isn't dotted or a "t" isn't crossed - - - or something wasn't initialed - - - whatever they can drum up.

I know of at least 2 cases last year - - in government funded hospitals - - LAMDA Legal had to step in and straighten out a homophobic nurse.

It is getting better. But nothing replaces marriage rights.

Originally posted by TheXoor
Muppets? Freaking Muppets? And Chick-a-fil?!? This is what you people are arguing over for a double-digit number of pages?

NO.

My understanding of the situation:

Chick-fil-A supports man / woman marriage, supports an organization that is against homosexuality. Muppets disagree with Chick-fil-A's beliefs, states it publicly. Chick-fil-A pulls Muppet toys from their stores, they claim they are unsafe (we know that is a load of baloney, but you won't be able to prove that in court).

So what is the story? Two businesses had a falling out over beliefs, won't be doing business with one another. Chick-fil-A didn't do anything wrong, now you may not agree with their beliefs, but they are right to have them (now I know some ATS members will disagree with me on that one) Now if you can prove that Chick-fil-A won't serve homosexuals in their restaurants, or won't hire a homosexual, you would have a story. (but you won't find that because Chick-fil-A doesn't really care who their customers are, as long as you have money, they are willing to take it)

If you disagree with Chick-fil-A beliefs then don't go to their stores. Simple and easy.

Originally posted by TheXoor
This is why America is declining; it's become a nation of narcissists and whining special interest groups whose central focus is victimhood and a nonstop obsession with "taking offense".

We have a winner ladies and gentlemen.

To me the homosexual agenda goes way past equal rights, they want to censor peoples thoughts. Don't dare say you disagree with homosexuality, you shouldn't be allowed to say that.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by snarky412

 

This isn't the first time Chik-fail-a has had bad media coverage. Their habbit of mixing business with personal has bit them on the butt many times. It won't be the last time we see them have an issue with the community.

True....but this won't hurt their business any. They need to watch what they say & who it might offend in the future.

Some people just don't think before they speak.

reply to post by snarky412


They shouldn't have to.

It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

That means you have every right to speak your mind, even if it is an uneducated or unfortunate opinion.

You do not have any right to tell a person to shut up or get them to shut up.

If you disagree with someone, you should back it up with reason, logic, and real facts, not opinions stated as facts.

Telling someone to shut up because they don't have the popular opinion only makes that person a fool.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by snarky412

 

They shouldn't have to.

It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

That means you have every right to speak your mind, even if it is an uneducated or unfortunate opinion.

You do not have any right to tell a person to shut up or get them to shut up.

If you disagree with someone, you should back it up with reason, logic, and real facts, not opinions stated as facts.

Telling someone to shut up because they don't have the popular opinion only makes that person a fool.

You're absolutely right. I was merely talking about people who are in a CEO position that may have prevented this hoopla if they maybe worded it more delicately. But being as this is a touchy subject for some, no matter what was said, the company would have been attacked regardless.

Personally I don't care one way or another. Like you said, freedom of expression & to be able to believe in any way they want to. The same applies to the Muppets, what ever they believe, that's their choice.

To each their own. It should have been resolved out of the media spot light I think.
But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by Annee


if individual hospitals refuse to recognise existing laws it is not the fault of the laws, it is the fault of the individual businesses.... They can be sued if they deny rights

you cannot say you do not have these rights because they exist, are a part of the law, and anyone who does not follow them is not following the law.

Period.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

People want others to be tolerant of their lifestyle, yet they are intolerant of anyone who doesnt agree with them....to the point of character assassination Lets brow beat someone because they just dont think gay marriage applicable in their faith........

I'm like a lot of others around here, I don't care one way or another. Like you, it doesn't affect me in any way.

But I'm sensing a double standard here. It's okay for the Jim Henson Co. to be able to believe & feel how they want & it's okay. Which it is, that's their right.

However, as you stated, Chik-fil-A, which has never wavered from their beliefs since the beginning of their business, is being slammed for their beliefs. They have rights too & should not be intimidated or bullied into believing differently.

Of course, by me saying this, I'll probably get slammed too. Some have taken this a little to seriously for me.

reply to post by snarky412


Why should they have to word anything delicately. They simply stated what they believe...

they do not discriminate, they employ people of all races, sexual orientations and so forth, and also do business with them... they pay a higher starting wage, and have excellent business practices all the way around.

to state what they believe the largest religion in America believes. and to openly state it is what they follow... is not something they should have to be delicate about!

The gay and lesbian community should not be trying to railroad anyone for holding any belief in a country that is free! If they do not want to be employed or do business with this company it is their right, but what they are doing is trying to blackmail them at all levels

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by snarky412

 

Why should they have to word anything delicately. They simply stated what they believe...

they do not discriminate, they employ people of all races, sexual orientations and so forth, and also do business with them... they pay a higher starting wage, and have excellent business practices all the way around.

to state what they believe the largest religion in America believes. and to openly state it is what they follow... is not something they should have to be delicate about!

The gay and lesbian community should not be trying to railroad anyone for holding any belief in a country that is free! If they do not want to be employed or do business with this company it is their right, but what they are doing is trying to blackmail them at all levels

I never condemned them in any way. We eat there all the time, and will continue. As I said before, I don't care one way or another & I doubt that it will hurt their business in any way. It just seems that any more these special interest groups are hovering around waiting to pounce on the least little thing any more, which is why I said maybe next time for the CEO to use more caution, never did I say he couldn't say what he wants to.

If you read my previous comment, I said that they have always been a faith based company since the beginning and should not be intimidated or bullied because their views are different from some one else.

Just like the Jim Henson Co. has their right to their beliefs also.

Seems to me that they both should have known their "views" were going to differ from the start. Just end the contract if it bothers them so much and move on. No big deal.....

You know what's really sad about this is?

Things like this are only a big deal if some people want it to be.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


I know this is off topic, but cool looking avatar!!

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
You know what's really sad about this is?

Things like this are only a big deal if some people want it to be.

What is sad about this is - - - it doesn't have to be. Mr. Cathy can have all the beliefs he wants.

Donating millions of dollars to anti-gay hate groups is a big deal - - - and directly interferes with the rights of individuals - - that has nothing to do with him running a business.