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

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by lambs to lions

 

Chic fil a, what a wicked web we the people weave!!!! Does anyone know what the 1st ammendment says? You know, the freedom of speech thing?? I can understand someone being upset with what the owner said, but have you ever looked in the mirror and worried about anything that you said that maybe someone didnt like? Of course not! That is because in the United States of America we HAD the freedom of speech!

Why has the liberal agenda turned this into an issue where it appears that they want our government to ban a business because of what someone says or believes in??? Can anyone see the hypocracy here?

Maybe I should create a post on how anyone who is against Obama should boycott Progressive Insurance or Little Caesars Pizza, just because the people who own those businesses support Obama!!!!!! Then again, I believe in our Constitution and believe no matter how I may disagree with someone that they HAVE THE FREEDOM TO SAY WHATEVER THE HELL THEY CHOOSE TO SAY WITHOUT CRYING TO BIG GOVERNMENT TO STOP THEM!!!!!

You folks who want to shut down a business in an economy that is going to hell in a handbasket need to really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself how much you value your freedom of speech!!!! Plain and simple folks, god damn it!!! We love to say what's on our minds but god forbid someone says something that we disagree with???? Grow a damn set and quit being a bunch of cry babies!!

Reminds me of my days in grade school!! Yet we like to claim we are adults! Well ACT LIKE IT GOD DAMN IT!! Just because someone says something you don't agree with, doesn't give YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT the right or authority to stop it! You are walking a slippery slope and you should be able to see what is coming your way next!!!!

Maybe the liberal party should rename themselves the Anti 1st Amendment Crybaby Party????

Wow, really? What you don't seem to get is that it's not their right to free speech anyone is debating, it's whether or not you want to support a business that gives MILLIONS to hate groups. He can say anything wants, but it's then my right not to give him my money. It's also my right to let people know why, then let them make the same decision. And before you bring up Boston or Chicago, I disagree with the officials in those cities who said they would try to block them from coming in, THAT was an infringement.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

I wasn't talk about shotgun marriages, which is a forced marriage. I was talking about enforcing/ensuring your rights. If you want to be a part of the system which recognizes legally married couples and confers rights (whether you agree or not), you can not get rid of legal marriage rights.

I can SAY I'm married and have a legal contract with the other person whom I am married to, however, state/federal laws in most cases won't recognize that as a marriage and will not give me the right of succession or death benefits or ANY number of benefits/securities that require showing a legal marriage (certificate).

reply to post by grahag

If you want to be a part of the system which recognizes legally married couples and confers rights (whether you agree or not), you can not get rid of legal marriage rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of anything, and have no concern about eliminating "legal marriage rights" that's your obsession, not mine. In terms of the system, let's be honest here, unalienable rights are outside of that system. All the rights enumerated, and all rights not enumerated (Ninth Amendment) are rights outside of the system, which is why the federal government has been prohibited from infringing upon them.

Right of succession is in regards to "taxpayers" and has nothing at all to do with non-taxpayers. The key to your "rights" your so concerned about is in your language "give me". You have no regard for unalienable rights other than they are a "nice idea", and have nothing but regard for "legal rights", but what can be granted legally can be taken away legally and here we come back to the topic at hand.

If you are not in favor suppressing people from marriage based upon their sexual orientation, then why are you working so hard attempting to dismiss the validity of unalienable rights?

reply to post by lambs to lions

Anyone has a right to say what they want. I have a right to buy chicken from them or not. I choose not. What's the big deal? I wish he would have kept his big mouth shut as I happened to like those shakes!!! I don't know what P&G's stance on gay marriage is. As long as they keep it to themselves, I'll keep their stock and keep buying their products. Should they decide to come out as bigoted and hateful, I have the right to decide if I want to further my involvement with them. So far, they have been smart about it and not said anything.
People are so sick of getting screwed by Big Government that they are acting out on this Chick thing. They feel like they can be heard and make a difference so they are acting out. IMHO, people who want to make money selling chicken, when there are fifty places to by chicken from, should keep their opinions to themselves (they lost a lot of business by this guy making this statement). Granted, sales jumped, but in the long run, they will loose.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by grahag

 

If you want to be a part of the system which recognizes legally married couples and confers rights (whether you agree or not), you can not get rid of legal marriage rights.

If you are not in favor suppressing people from marriage based upon their sexual orientation, then why are you working so hard attempting to dismiss the validity of unalienable rights?

Because in the real world unalienable rights aren't recognized. They're an ideal that no one will adhere to. Without recognition of or adherence to those rights, they might as well not even exist.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by grey580

 

Their beliefs, which they obviously value, or they wouldn't stand by them. Thus, they leave profit on the table. Just because you have different values, don't poo-poo their right to theirs.

Leave profit on the table, my ass. All that these corporations are about is maximizing profit, and if you believe this is anything other than a publicity stunt you're naive I'm afraid.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm a little confused about some of the things you're talking about here, so bear with me because I'm trying to understand. Are you saying that there are ways to obtain the equivalent benefits and protections, and avoid the penalties, that people are seeking through marriage without having to be married? If that's true I would be interested to understand that better.

An example of what I'm talking about: I once had a domestic partner situation in order to secure health insurance through an employer. I was surprised to discover that obtaining health insurance through such an arrangement is considered a taxable benefit and got killed in taxes, negating the advantage of employer sponsored health insurance for me (so I understand better than most the limitations the gay community faces). This is the kind of situation people are faced with when they aren't considered "married" but are trying to provide for their family, and it puts a person at a serious disadvantage as opposed to an individual who has the option to be married. Why should I "have" to be married to obtain these things? Why is there a requirement to be paired up with the opposite sex to obtain these things? I understand what you mean when you say you can say you're married and you're married, but you can't have all the other benefits and that's what people want. And they are denied them.

I'm not saying these particular things in and of themselves are rights per se, but if access to them to them is contingent upon a piece of paper that says that you are married, and you can't get that piece of paper unless you can get a license, and you can't get the license because somewhere, someone decided only a man and a woman shacking up together can get it...then what is the solution to this problem? How can that stand? Because it feels very much like it's creating two classes of individuals: those who get to be "in" the club and those who have to be "out." Sort of like segregation.

Is it permissible to have a system put in place by the government that automatically excludes a percentage of the population (meaning those who are not or cannot be married) when that system deals with such basic human needs as the ability to obtain affordable healthcare or be present during a health crisis involving their loves ones? Or the tax system that rules our lives, like it or not, and confers advantage to those who are "in" the club and those who are not. Again, what solution addresses these issues? Because if we didn't need a license to get married, and anyone could "get" married, and being married was completely unrelated to any of the benefits, protections and advantages that are what people are really looking for, then what would people have left to argue about. The word?

These are the thoughts your reply brings to mind. I don't have it all figured out and don't understand everything you're saying but appreciate a true challenge to my way of thinking. I have found my own ways of living outside of the system where I can, many of which people find alarming (which makes chuckle). But not everyone has the courage, gumption or creativity to try a different way.

I like you. You challenge my thinking. Not many people can do that (and many have tried).

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by grahag

 

If you want to be a part of the system which recognizes legally married couples and confers rights (whether you agree or not), you can not get rid of legal marriage rights.

If you are not in favor suppressing people from marriage based upon their sexual orientation, then why are you working so hard attempting to dismiss the validity of unalienable rights?

Because in the real world unalienable rights aren't recognized. They're an ideal that no one will adhere to. Without recognition of or adherence to those rights, they might as well not even exist.

You're right, we've been conditioned to believe they don't exist to our own detriment.

reply to post by grahag

Because in the real world unalienable rights aren't recognized.

I see, so the Bill of Right is not in the "real world"?

California State Constitution:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Well, people have always said California doesn't live in the "real world"

Virginia State Constitution

Section 1. Equality and rights of men. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their post erity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Massachussettes State Constitution:

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

North Carolina State Constitution

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Arkansas State Constitution:

All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Illinois State Constitution:

All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

New Mexico State Constitution:

All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.

Texas State Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

There is, quite frankly, not near enough character space to list in one post all of the states that don't live in this "real world" of yours. This "real world" where "equal rights" means something other than unalienable rights and to hell with Constitutions, no?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I read your comment again and I agree with what you're saying. Except it is not that one merely becomes "tax liable" there are other advantages (or should I call them inalienable rights?), the access to which is denied through the inability to get that licensing (as I tried to point out in my earlier comment, albeit in a rather longwinded way). So licensing is not a right but the restriction to obtain the needed licensing results in a denial of inalienable rights. Does that follow? Or is there another way to achieve the same ends that I'm not understanding?

Trying to follow your logic and add my own.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


How do YOU enforce those unalienable rights? The rights that you were born with and no man can take away?

When you live in a society that enforces it's rules through imprisonment, liens, fines, and other methods, how do you buck the rules to claim your unalienable rights?

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

How do YOU enforce those unalienable rights? The rights that you were born with and no man can take away?

When you live in a society that enforces it's rules through imprisonment, liens, fines, and other methods, how do you buck the rules to claim your unalienable rights?

I see, so what you saying is that in the "real world" if a two people who really love each other decline to acquiesce to a licensing scheme for marriage they will be imprisoned for this, fined, and "other methods" (torture maybe?). Is this your "real world" vision?

reply to post by grahag


And this is how I separate LEGAL rights from UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Legal rights are backed by the law. Unalienable rights are backed by YOU, your constitution, and your actions, but is subject to the actions of others.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

How do YOU enforce those unalienable rights? The rights that you were born with and no man can take away?

When you live in a society that enforces it's rules through imprisonment, liens, fines, and other methods, how do you buck the rules to claim your unalienable rights?

I see, so what you saying is that in the "real world" if a two people who really love each other decline to acquiesce to a licensing scheme for marriage they will be imprisoned for this, fined, and "other methods" (torture maybe?). Is this your "real world" vision?

You're going to have to answer my question before I can continue on yours...

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by grahag

 

And this is how I separate LEGAL rights from UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Legal rights are backed by the law. Unalienable rights are backed by YOU, your constitution, and your actions, but is subject to the actions of others.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The Supreme Court struck down the BFCRAct upholding the unalienable right to speech!

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court upheld the unalienable right to keep and bear arms!

In McDonald v. Chicago again the Supreme Court upheld the unalienable right to keep and bear arms!

These are just three recent rulings where the Supreme Court has struck down bogus legislation upholding unalienable rights. Of course, these Supreme Court cases were brought to them by people who don't live in your "real world" You can smugly pat yourself on the back and call yourself erudite for explaining to gay people that they cannot rely upon their unalienable rights and have to satisfy themselves they are victims, and I have no doubt there are plenty within this current gay movement who applaud your "erudition", as woefully ignorant of actual law and American jurisprudence as it is, but for those who have no interest in remaining a victim, you have nothing to offer them.

reply to post by otherpotato


If access to these privileges you speak of is what you want, then go down that road. When people start justifying licensing schemes for marriage based upon the filing of tax returns, then the issue becomes far more complex, and all I can really say to you, regarding filing valid tax returns is what makes you think you are subject to those applicable revenue laws to begin with? What makes you think you're liable for any 'income" tax at all?

Have you read the tax code and because of that assessed your own liability or did you just accept what others have told you?

The tax code is vastly complex and I don't fault anyone for not reading it, but when you get legislation that complex then you're in the realm of the void for vagueness doctrine anyway, even if that code does somehow make you subject to it.

If you are happy being a "taxpayer" I understand, but this complexity then, is of your own making. It is getting late in the day and I have spent too much time linking things today, so I urge you to begin with Googling void for vagueness doctrine and if you dare, go into to Title 26 and try to determine how it was you were made liable for any tax.

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by grahag

 

And this is how I separate LEGAL rights from UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Legal rights are backed by the law. Unalienable rights are backed by YOU, your constitution, and your actions, but is subject to the actions of others.

I did answer your question! Are you not reading? What the hell do you think those Constitutional Bill of and Declaration of rights were, and what the hell do you think those Supreme Court rulings were?

Are you suggesting because there is murder this is evidence that there is not unalienable right to life?

The truth is that deep inside in a place the most dedicated Liberals will never admit exists lies a truth, They believe that Homosexuality is deviant. Homosexuality is not a skin color or region of birth. It is not a religion or political ideology.

Now most of America hoping to be PC joins in the acceptance chorus. The average American only wants to be left alone and for the most part thinks that others deserve the same. Then there is the group that are willing to simply outwardly say “no, it is wrong”.

Where the Gay movement has gone wrong is that they do not truly know how people feel. It is not what they say or how they act. For most the marriage issue pushes it over the edge and runs head long into the hidden reality that the majority of Americans outwardly accept you, inside they do not. We do the best we can because you are members of our family, you may be our friends. or neighbors and people we respect for what you do in the conduct of your life and we may even love you. Still if we could change things we would not want you gay.

People will never say it to your face; they will behave as expected and decry anyone deemed a homophobe. In reality they do not truely accept, understand, or ever in their wildest dreams hope that their children are gay. That is the truth. Like it or not. Take what you can get ,live and let live, most of us cannot blame you for trying. Most of us wish you no harm but do not ever think that the your perception ever represents the reality of life.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by grahag

 

And this is how I separate LEGAL rights from UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Legal rights are backed by the law. Unalienable rights are backed by YOU, your constitution, and your actions, but is subject to the actions of others.

I did answer your question! Are you not reading? What the hell do you think those Constitutional Bill of and Declaration of rights were, and what the hell do you think those Supreme Court rulings were?

Are you suggesting because there is murder this is evidence that there is not unalienable right to life?

Your rights are only as good as you can enforce...

reply to post by grahag

Your rights are only as good as you can enforce...

This is why self defense is an enforceable right. This is why two men can go out an purchase wedding rings, and one of those men can even purchase a wedding gown if he wishes, and these two men can perform their own private ceremony to marry each other. They can do this because it is enforceable, and I am willing to bet that Dan Cathy will not even attempt to stop this.