Chick-Fil-A, Standing Up Against a Liberal Agenda

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your preaching to the choir.

I wasn't meaning to preach, lecture or pontificate TO YOU. I'm sorry you took it as such. I agreed with your statement (which rarely happens). I wasn't accusing you of attempting to silence anyone, and I'm not sure where that came from. I was adding my opinion (about dealing with the consequences of our actions) to the discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear or if my opinion bothered you in some way.

Your intent in attacking my honesty is neither warranted nor clear to me. But, I support your right to do it.

reply to post by otherpotato


It seems to me, on some level, you did understand my machete remark. It seems this way to me because you begin by acknowledging what I have argued for several years in this site now, that licensing schemes for marriage is the problem. What compelling reason is there for a licensing scheme? Do you fully understand that the legally speaking a license is the grant by authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal? This is not a subtle nuance. By imposing a licensing scheme on marriage, states have effectively declared marriage illegal and only allow those they deem fit for marriage to marry. This is the problem, and it is clearly the problem, but no matter how hard I try to get this through to the "equal rights" sect, it is continually ignored while that sect pretends I am against "equal rights".

Unalienable rights are by definition equal rights. No one can grant unalienable rights. If it is an unalienable right everyone has that right. Do you understand? Equal rights are inherent in unalienable rights and all people have the unalienable right to marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation. This is what I fight for non stop, and even so, or in spite of that, the "equal rights" sect continually feels compelled to lecture me on what "equal rights" means and they will not stop, will never acknowledge that I am fighting for equal rights, until I finally adopt the language they approve of.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wow, that does make so much sense, I never thought of it like that.

Unfortunately, getting rid of licensing for marriage would seem like an uphill battle, no? A worthy pursuit nonetheless.

You've expanded my views today. I thank you for that. It's the name of the game after all.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by coop039
Ok, Ill admit i dont have time to read all the pages. I keep seeing people say Chik fil a donated and gave money to gay hate groups. Just what hate groups are these? Do we have a list?

Here you go: Its not your local food bank.

NOM - - National Organization for Marriage.
FRC - - Family Research Council
AFA - - American Family Association

Also a Reparative Therapy Organization which I can't remember by name at the moment.

Southern Poverty Law Center Adds NOM, FRC, & AFA to List of Hate Groups;

The Republicans have joined an online petition protesting the claims of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC recently added the Family Research Council (FRC), the American Family Association (AFA) and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to the same list of hate groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam and the Aryan Nations for their opposition to gay rights. www.gospelaccordingtohate.com...

edit on 3-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

What have those groups done to qualify as hate groups? the KKK, Islam and Aryan Nation I get, but other then being christian groups in favor of traditional family, what have they done to qualify as hate groups?
Christian groups have freedom or speech and expression, and we do have freedom of religion in this country.

reply to post by otherpotato

Unfortunately, getting rid of licensing for marriage would seem like an uphill battle, no? A worthy pursuit nonetheless.

The up-hill battle is in convincing people they don't need a license to get married. Unlicensed marriages will not bring storm troopers to your door demanding to show a license. Unlicensed marriages will not bring law suits by government demanding you obtain a license. Unlicensed marriages will not stain the sacred nature of marriage.

Virtually all churches in the U.S. will not marry a couple until they have first obtained a license, but it seems to me that gay people have a hard enough time finding churches to marry them anyway. Why fight so hard to obtain permission that isn't needed. Invariably someone will come in and explain why and when that time arrives pay attention because the explanation has nothing at all to do with freedom or equal rights but rather with filing privileges.

This uphill battle will start to level once heterosexuals decide that licensing schemes are odious and inappropriate, and feel strongly enough about this that they leave their churches until those religious institutions acquiesce to freedom and stop sponsoring tyranny.

reply to post by notionfreely


Why not? It is delicious. The poor little tasty chickens...

Originally posted by coop039

What have those groups done to qualify as hate groups? the KKK, Islam and Aryan Nation I get, but other then being christian groups in favor of traditional family, what have they done to qualify as hate groups?
Christian groups have freedom or speech and expression, and we do have freedom of religion in this country.

I don't have time right now - - have to go.

Being anti-gay does not put a group on the hate list.

Putting forth propaganda as fact - - such as Gays are pedophiles - - etc.

The extreme tactics they used put them on the list.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by grey580

 

Sorry, I though that you were being sarcastic. They do not believe in same-sex marraige. They believe in the marraige between two consenting adults, one being a man, the other, a woman.

Not believe in it (opinion) and actively campaigning against people being able to do it, is entirely different. Like the difference between hating someone and punching a person in the face because you hate them.

These "Christians", are acting as if their religion has the right to tell EVERYONE how they have to live and they are ACTIVELY working to prevent people from their pursuit of happiness. They're the opposite of patriots. They're tyrants, telling us how we have to live our lives.

Your right to speak your opinion is guaranteed by the government. Your right to force others to live how you want is NOT. This is why I will actively campaign to remove religion from government and to prevent people from getting elected that will enforce their religious beliefs on me.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


As long as marriage (Straight, Gay or other) confers legal rights, then a a license or contract will exist. There's no way to get around that.

Originally posted by lme7898354
It;s a refreshing change to see someone stand up for the silent majority that doesn't use high power lobbyists to force their agenda down the throats of the American public IE: gay marriage. The fact that the general public has spoken and maybe this will start a ground swell of standing up for what's right instead of being scared of voicing you opinion in favor of family values.

How does two same sex people getting married affect you personally?

Also, Chik Fil A actively lobbies, along with MANY different companies against same sex marriage. Your silent majority really isn't so silent. I suspect that they even contribute more money than the LGBT lobbyists, but I'm looking for proof on that now.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
It is not often that a company chooses 'core-values' over profits. Chick-Fil-A is one such company. In a time where companies will do anything and everything to grab as much money as possible, Chick-Fil-A chooses to close it's doors on Sundays, which they feel should be observed as a holy day of rest. To me, this is very, very refreshing.

Recently, Dan Cathy, the company's COO, made some comments during an interview with the Baptist Press concerning his beliefs on gay marraige. Cathy said, "We are very much supportive of the family-the biblical definition of the family unit, we are a family-owned business, a family-led business. and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

In choosing to exercise his right to free speech, Cathy has found himself , along with his company in a heated controversy. In this day and age, Cathy's opinions are considered bigoted, hateful, backwards, and primitive.

Mr. Cathy, I salute you.

You once again stood up for what YOU felt was right knowing that it would land you and your company in hot water publicly.

Unless, of course, preaching "values" is simply a marketing gimmick designed to appeal to the country's single largest marketing demographic. Namely, the approximately 50% of the population who is completely devoid of critical thinking skills and march in goose-step unison to whatever perceived authority figures decide they ought to think about things.

The great thing about marketing to sheep is you really only have convince the first 3-5 of them to move in a given direction. The rest just follow the herd because that is exactly what sheep do.

Liberal agendas are constantly being forced down our throat and we are constantly being beaten over the head with them.

Funny...I feel that way about religious nuttery. I cannot count how many times I have been harassed under the guise of attempting to "save" me. Why don't all those make-my-day laws and rootin'-tootin' concealed weapon cowboy laws also stipulate that it's OK to pop a cap or two into these bicycle riding freaks?

He wasn't being hateful, he was stating his opinion, and doing so at the risk of his company's well-being.

Ummm...the biblical definition of "marriage" is one in which polygamist inbreeding with your first cousins is A-OK and in which Adam & Eve's children practiced bestiality. You and Dan Cathy ought to really read the book you "believe" in sometime...it's got the darndest things in it.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if they chose to champion the rights of insects. If that meant that they chose their beliefs over the security of their profits, I would respect that.

Really? So...if Dan Cathy was a huge believer in abortion, gay marriage, and was a member of Satanic cult...you would be cool with that? What if Dan Cathy burned bibles in the parking lots of all of his Chick-Fil-A locations every sunday to show how he is willing to champion his beliefs in Satanism...even at the expense of his profits. Would you also be rushing out to buy a chicken sandwich from him?

Face it...the warm an cuddly feeling you are getting isn't a result of Dan Cathy standing up for his beliefs...it's because he's standing up for the same exact things that also happen to appeal to you. Not that there is anything wrong with that per se...I just urge you to recognize it for what it is.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But how does your marriage get recorded as being "official" then? One cannot just say "I'm married now" and gain the benefits that come with it. (And mind you I'm not saying this is the way it "should" be - we all know how the government likes to subtly force you to do things).

This is the very reason why "marriage" is an issue for the gay community. The benefits are NOT the same for domestic partnerships or co-habitating couples (I do not have the exact list of what the differences are - I would have to ask my brother since this is what he faces). If these are things a person cares about and wants but can't get them unless they have a status of "married" that is recognized by the state and the government how does a person otherwise obtain those benefits and rights? Or do they just have to accept that they will never have them?

And I realize we are bordering on getting a off topic, though it's a further point to my argument that it is unjust for gays to be denied the same rights available to same sex couples who choose to marry. To actively promote that denial is pure discrimination. If we need to move this conversation elsewhere that's fine. I am interested in this discussion.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Namely, the approximately 50% of the population who is completely devoid of critical thinking skills and march in goose-step unison to whatever perceived authority figures decide they ought to think about things.

Was the word "approximately" placed before the seemingly made up statistic to make it appear as if this remark is borne of critical thought?

What percentage of Americans posses sound critical thinking skills, I wonder? What sort of poll could be devised to determine that? Would critical thinkers take the time to take such a poll? Are you aware of the very serious problem of students graduating universities with no marked improvement in their critical thinking skills?

As enrollment rates in colleges have continued to increase, a new book questions whether the historic number of young people attending college will actually learn all that much once they get to campus. In Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, two authors present a study that followed 2,300 students at 24 universities over the course of four years. The study measured both the amount that students improved in terms of critical thinking and writing skills, in addition to how much they studied and how many papers they wrote for their courses.

Richard Arum, a co-author of the book and a professor of sociology at New York University, tells NPR's Steve Inskeep that the fact that more than a third of students showed no improvement in critical thinking skills after four years at a university was cause for concern.

Tell us, would the more than a third Arum speaks to represent only a subset of the "50%" you speak of? Are they the group you are criticizing through "critical thought"? Are the less than two-thirds remaining of that study outside the group you are speaking to?

A Perfect Storm in Undergraduate Education, Part I

Unsurprisingly, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (University of Chicago Press, 2011), by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, reveals that at least 45 percent of undergraduates demonstrated "no improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills in the first two years of college, and 36 percent showed no progress in four years." And that's just the beginning of the bad news.

Do "critical thinkers" who live in glass houses throw stones?

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

As long as marriage (Straight, Gay or other) confers legal rights, then a a license or contract will exist. There's no way to get around that.

Marriage does not confer legal rights. Governments do that. I, on the other hand, am addressing the unalienable right to marriage. Unalienable rights are not conferred. There is most assuredly a way around conferred legal rights, and the way around that is by asserting the unalienable right to marry. It is that simple because all law is simple. Legal rights, on the other hand, tend towards absurd complexities.

Are you defending legal rights as something superior to unalienable rights?

reply to post by otherpotato


"Off topic" or not, you have tapped into the very heart of why the gay movement is fighting so hard to be included in a licensing scheme and that has to do with filing privileges, not equal rights. "Taxpayers" do not have equal rights, they are those people who are statutorily defined as being subject to any applicable revenue law. Why on Earth would anyone fight for their "equal right" to be subject to any applicable revenue laws and thus liable for a tax?

The simplicity of law is eschewed for the absurd complexity of legalism. Ironically this ism so dearly embraced by the gay movement is every bit as religious in nature as the Christians they are so upset with.

reply to post by coop039

The Family Foundation seeks to promote and defend the traditional marriage unit as the foundation to a stable society.

What we are doing:
Opposing Domestic Partner Benefits | Homosexual advocates have worked to diminish the status of marriage by providing marriage benefits to any relationship. Already, private companies in Virginia can do so. Despite a marriage amendment that prohibits this, efforts are underway to expand this to state and local government.

Opposing Homosexual Behavior as a Protected Class | Every year there are efforts in Virginia to add homosexuality to the list of protected classes in non-discrimination laws. This is not only unnecessary, as no evidence of discrimination exists, but has potential negative ramifications on religious liberty.

You're telling me this kind of behavior is not hateful? Surely you jest. They want to hoard all the rights of marriage for themselves.

See more organizations like this

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

As long as marriage (Straight, Gay or other) confers legal rights, then a a license or contract will exist. There's no way to get around that.

Marriage does not confer legal rights. Governments do that. I, on the other hand, am addressing the unalienable right to marriage. Unalienable rights are not conferred. There is most assuredly a way around conferred legal rights, and the way around that is by asserting the unalienable right to marry. It is that simple because all law is simple. Legal rights, on the other hand, tend towards absurd complexities.

Are you defending legal rights as something superior to unalienable rights?

In this case, yes. Because the legal marriage is what would matter in the case of any legal disputes. As long as the law counts on conferring rights by contract/license, then you can't do away with legal marriage.

While the idea of inalienable rights are awesome, there's no way to enforce your rights except by gunpoint. If someone believes that you shouldn't have those rights, then you need to escalate the process to enforce them.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by otherpotato

 

"Off topic" or not, you have tapped into the very heart of why the gay movement is fighting so hard to be included in a licensing scheme and that has to do with filing privileges, not equal rights. "Taxpayers" do not have equal rights, they are those people who are statutorily defined as being subject to any applicable revenue law. Why on Earth would anyone fight for their "equal right" to be subject to any applicable revenue laws and thus liable for a tax?

The simplicity of law is eschewed for the absurd complexity of legalism. Ironically this ism so dearly embraced by the gay movement is every bit as religious in nature as the Christians they are so upset with.

That is how the system works. There's not a way around it if you want to be a part of the system, which included social security and other benefits, tax breaks, and a myriad of other "rights" that people have when legally joined. I agree that there shouldn't be any laws that tells someone who they can and cannot marry as long as it's by consent of the two (or more) parties. I don't agree with it, but I can't think of any better system to guarantee and enforce those "rights"

reply to post by grahag

In this case, yes. Because the legal marriage is what would matter in the case of any legal disputes. As long as the law counts on conferring rights by contract/license, then you can't do away with legal marriage.

While the idea of inalienable rights are awesome, there's no way to enforce your rights except by gunpoint. If someone believes that you shouldn't have those rights, then you need to escalate the process to enforce them.

Shot gun marriages are the exact opposite of what you just described in your efforts to dismiss unalienable rights. Exercising the unalienable right to marriage does not require anything other than two willing participants making a contract of marriage. All people have a right to contract.

In terms of legal disputes if what you are claiming were true, then common law marriages would have no validity at all.

reply to post by grahag

That is how the system works. There's not a way around it if you want to be a part of the system, which included social security and other benefits, tax breaks, and a myriad of other "rights" that people have when legally joined. I agree that there shouldn't be any laws that tells someone who they can and cannot marry as long as it's by consent of the two (or more) parties. I don't agree with it, but I can't think of any better system to guarantee and enforce those "rights"

Enforce what "rights". How does it feel when you composing these thoughts and find yourself compelled to place quotation marks around "rights"? There is, in fact, no laws telling anyone they cannot marry. Any legislation that has been passed restricting gay people from marrying is in terms of marriage licenses. Two gay people who declare themselves married without a license are not breaking any law.

The reason you are compelled to place quotation marks around the word "rights" is to justify the need for a license to obtain tax privileges and other government conferred privileges. I have never met a soul who defends this argument who has actually read the tax code and can reasonably explain to me how it is they are even liable for the tax in question. This is how bad the ignorance of law has become and the desperate need to defend the complexity of legalism those defending it can barely understand.