Chick-fil-A Ban

First, did everyone notice how Mavericklaunch attempted to change the terms of the debate by introducing the canard that one can only be a bigot if one acts illegally toward a protected class? And then set the entire debate in terms of Michigan landlord-tenant law? As coaster fans, I think we can all appreciate that twisted path...

But regarding the "homosexuals aren't a protected class" argument, well, yes and no. When courts apply the 14th Amendment substantive due process clause to laws that seek to limit the rights of particular groups, they do so under various levels of scrutiny. True, sexual orientation is not evaluated under strict scrutiny, which applies to laws that touch upon racial status and the like, but it does fall under "rational basis" scrutiny.

This means that the maker of the law needs to point to some interest the government has in creating and enforcing the law. Read Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. In both of these cases, the Supreme Court held that the respective discriminatory law against homosexuals in question could not meet this test, as there was no demonstrated legitimate interest behind these laws.

So, it's incorrect to state that its not a protected class, because you have to look beyond the state employment and landlord-tenant law upon which you've selectively and narrowly based your arguments. The recent decisions striking down California Prop 8 took the law through the above analysis, and I expect the discriminatory language written into state constitutions regarding marriage to eventually meet a similar fate, due to them speaking to no legitimate government interest.

The 1st Amendment only protects you from the government persecuting you for making bigoted statements. It doesn't protect you from others calling you out on them. DJ nailed it: if you don't want to be seen as a bigot, don't look to semantics, look to yourself.

So, 60 years ago, before the civil rights era and where segregation was actually protected in many states and others simply had no laws protecting people based on race, you weren't a racist because the law didn't specifically call you a racist?

There's some BS logic right there.

Just because the law doesn't say you can't discriminate against someone doesn't mean you aren't a bigot when you do. Don't want to be called a bigot, don't act like one.

There is a difference between religion being mentioned in the context of discussion and religion being the subject of discussion.

Nope.

Freedom of speech is an illusion because I can be held accountable for things that I say which are false and which injure others? And freedom of religion is an illusion because Mormons can't have legally reconized multiple wives? Freedom doesn't have to be unlimited to exist. And freedom has never meant freedom from the consequences of what you say or do.

Protected class has specific meaning under the law. Changes the level of scrutiny that any law which discriminates is reviewed. Its strict scrutiny for protected classes and rational basis for non-protected classes. Sexual orientation is not a protected class on the federal level. About 15-20 states include sexual orientation as a protected class on at least some level (in housing for example). That a given law may fail the rational basis test with respect to sexual orientation does not mean that sexual orientation is a protected class (at least in the purely legal context).

Well, hopefully the Employment Non-Discrimination Act finally gets passed, and that will change on a federal level, even under the "strictest scrutiny".

This whole argument is, at its core, about being an American. People rise up and put down what they see as bigotry, discrimination, and fight and fight and fight to get laws passed (even though on a human level it amazes me we need laws to "force" protection on people) that, on the American record, change who we are as a nation.

Sometimes its a sweeping change...a Supreme Court ruling, such as the inter-racial marriage decision...and sometimes its a smaller, although in 2012 still "loud"...like people banishing a business in their area if they do not like its practices.

In the end, after all the debate, does Chick-fil-A have a right to support discrimination with their monies? Yep.

But does Cedar Point want that sort of entity...especially in light of the current spotlight...in their park?

That's the question. And I certainly hope the answer is no.

After sleeping on this subject, and reading more of the replies and attacks, all I can say is "WOW!"

I'm still being called a bigot, despite absolutely NO evidence in any of these posts to the contrary. Amazing. I ought to defend myself further but frankly, there's no person's opinion on here that I really care about. A good night of sleep will give you this kind of clarity.

I wish you all luck in your continued debate. Me, I'll be hoping for that Chipotle to come into the park, while keeping Chick-fil-a. Great places to eat!

Personally, I wouldn't mind a Jolly Donut in the park... anybody? anybody?

MaverickLaunch said:
I ought to defend myself further but frankly, there's no person's opinion on here that I really care about.

That is a not-so-clever way to disguise admitting your argument has no legs on which to stand (because ad hominem doesn't work), as you quietly back out of the room.

I've been reading these forums for a while and kind of surprised by the discussion here.

Am I understanding many of your opinions correctly? If an individual supports the biblical definition of marriage and therefore against gay marriage, they are a bigot, hateful and as one person here stated "fundamentally evil"? Or is the problem for many of you the way Cathy made his comments?

If it's the former, then was President Obama a bigot and "fundamentally evil" up until a couple months ago?

Personally, I support gay marriage but just surprised by the strong, visceral reation by many. I certainly don't agree with the assumption someone is a bigot, hateful and fundamentally evil simply if they disagree and do not support gay marriage.

Kevinj said:
This whole argument is, at its core, about being an American. People rise up and put down what they see as bigotry, discrimination, and fight and fight and fight to get laws passed (even though on a human level it amazes me we need laws to "force" protection on people) that, on the American record, change who we are as a nation.

How can that amaze you? Our country was founded at a time when slavery existed. We fought a major war over it. And women couldn't vote. Its not like the idea of having to force protection on people is a foreign concept. Its part of who we are. :)

Observer2000 said:
If an individual (is) against gay marriage, they are a bigot...

Are you unfamiliar with what bigotry is? The definition has been linked to and quoted in this very thread.

It strikes me as odd that many are bothered by someone being identified - demonstrated through their own actions - as a bigot, rather than being bothered by the bigotry itself. Strange times.

Observer2000 said:
If an individual supports the biblical definition of marriage and therefore against gay marriage, they are a bigot, hateful and as one person here stated "fundamentally evil"?

If their behavior seeks to limit the liberty of others, or otherwise paint people as being less human, yes, absolutely.

Sophia Cruiseferro said:
With all do respect, both libel and slander are considered crimes.

No, not in the United States. There is no criminal libel law in the United States. There is no federal criminal defamation law either. A handful of states have criminal defamation laws, but they're very rarely used because they tend to violate the First Amendment.

And it's "due" respect, not "do." When you work in media, it's your job to know how what you say is approached under the law.

I just like Chicken.

dj, if you ever want to improve your debate or arguing skills beyond the 7th grade level, may I suggest a great book on the topic:

"How to Win Every Argument: the use and abuse of logic" by Madsen Pirie.

The book does a great job of identifying fallacies in arguments (which you use almost exclusively) and how to counter them. Admittedly, it has been quite some time since I read this book, and therefore did not apply most of it's principles in this thread. Time for a re-read. If not for the childish repeated name-calling you have engaged in, I'd probably continue a healthy dialogue with you... but it's clear you are enjoying hearing yourself talk and twisting people's words, and I have no time for that kind of nonsense.

I do not agree. Some people hold anti-gay marriage beliefs due to deeply rooted religious beliefs. I would never say they are fundamentally evil or hateful.

Jeff, I am glad to know you think Obama is a bigot and fundamentally evil (I don't happen to think he's fundamentally evil, just fundamentally stupid). He was against gay marragie until 2 or so months ago. I think that's painting people as less human coming from the most powerful man in the world. What a hateful, evil man.

MaverickLaunch said:
dj, if you ever want to improve your debate or arguing skills beyond the 7th grade level, may I suggest a great book on the topic:

"How to Win Every Argument: the use and abuse of logic" by Madsen Pirie.

The book does a great job of identifying fallacies in arguments (which you use almost exclusively) and how to counter them. Admittedly, it has been quite some time since I read this book, and therefore did not apply most of it's principles in this thread. Time for a re-read.

Be sure you take notes on the "Ad hominem" chapter.

If not for the childish repeated name-calling you have engaged in, I'd probably continue a healthy dialogue with you...

Pointing out bigotry is not the same as calling someone names, in the way you're attempting to portray. As I alluded to earlier, if someone were exhibiting racial behavior, would you criticize me for pointing out that they're racist? I certainly hope not.

djDaemon said:

Observer2000 said:
If an individual (is) against gay marriage, they are a bigot...

Are you unfamiliar with what bigotry is? The definition has been linked to and quoted in this very thread.

It strikes me as odd that many are bothered by someone being identified - demonstrated through their own actions - as a bigot, rather than being bothered by the bigotry itself. Strange times.

Yes, I am familiar with what bigotry is. Do you accept/agree with polygamy? If you don't, dj, then you are a bigot since the definition is "stubborn or complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own".

I guess I'm a bigot too after eating at Chick-fil-A last night, and enjoying every delicious morsel. But, I probably supported oppression after buying my wife diamond ear rings for her birthday last night after having a delicious chicken sandwich. Oh, and then I just pissed on the environment because I stopped and got fuel at BP. What a fun evening.

I'm the devil and going to hell I guess.

djDaemon said:
Pointing out bigotry is not the same as calling someone names, in the way you're attempting to portray.

This.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, calling it a duck is not name calling.