Chick-fil-A Ban

Kevinj your and my path to acceptance sounds very, very similar. To be honest I didn't totally understand the issue until I started working at Cedar Point and one of my coworkers was homosexual. He was the first to put it to me the same way I put it earlier in this thread. "If homosexuals were allowed to get married how would it affect you? Answer: It wouldn't."

From that point forward I have added many more gay friends into my circle and it has been a blessing to get to know every single one of them.

Sometimes all it takes is one conversation.

I'm with the both of you. I was tought the same thing, but due to traveling and experience I've come to my own conclusions. Everybody thinks differently.

And good Lord, I feel bad for Solomon...How did he put up with 700 wives? :)

Chuck Wagon said:
I have a hard time believing CF would end their association with Chick-Fil-A for any reason other than if they are no longer making money.

Well it's a good thing that I can personally guarantee (with absolutely no data to back it up) that the proposed Chipotle will make at least 30% more money than the Chick-fil-a does. :)

bholcomb said:
I just like Chicken.

Wendy's makes a surprisingly good chicken sandwich these days. And I'm not aware of them giving any money to hate groups.

KevinL332 said:

GoBucks89 said:

KevinL332 said:
only a church that takes government funding. if they don't want to than that's fine but they don't get the federal funds

So should a catholic church that takes government funding (whatever that means) be required to marry a jewish couple?

Yes, if they choose not to be self sustained and take money from the government to perform such services as marriage than yes they should be required to legally marry any US citizen

Seems totally absurd to me. But i doubt it would pass First Amendment challenges anyway.

Kevinj said:

Hundreds of legal benefits of being married? Maybe I missed something.

GoBucks, there are over 1400 legal benefits to being married.

Google it. I don't feel like listing them.

That's what this is about.

I did google it. And i found nothing near 1400. And many i did find listed were bogus. Filing a joint tax return was listed. But for many married folks there is a marriage penalty which increases their taxes as a result of being married. So its not a benefit. And many other benefits can easily be obtained through other means.

But in the end, i don't care. I have no opposition to same sex marriages or civil unions or whatever they may be called. As noted, they don't hurt me. I voted against Ohio's same sex marriage ban in 2004. Though it did pass along with similar bans in about 30 other states. Not sure such a ban has ever failed. So there is still a long way to go.

But i am off to Holiday World today and Kings Island over the weekend. Somehow that is more appealing to me than this discussion. :)

This Defense Against Marriage Act document provides a raw list of federal laws in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status. It does not take the time to decipher which are advantages or disadvantages.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Hypocrits!

How many of you have bought gas at an Exxon or mobile station? So what, are you not going to buy has now? Please. Such a childish response and I'm ashamed to be in the same group of coaster enthusiasts as some of you. At least, do the minimal homework required to not make yourselves look foolish.

(fallacies headed my way, I'm sure!)

I don't buy "has" anywhere, fool. Nor have I posted anything foolish. Sarcastic? Guilty as charged. Foolish? I'll leave that up to you.

^^And maybe you should put forth more than minimal effort to make some kind of point. :)

He has no point, Adam. But he is the new guy, after all.

Rookies.

See what ya guys did? ;)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/chick-fil-as-vice-president-of-public-relations-dies-of-heart-attack/

Chick-fil-A is a privately held family business. The CEO has a religious belief in the tradtional form a marriage, a man and a woman. Why are towns such as Boston refusing to allow a business to build just because of a religious belief? I am sure he is not the first Catholic CEO. He may be one of the first to have the guts to express publically how he feels and now he is being persecuted for pubically expressing his belief.

He has a entitiled to his opinion. If you do not like it, simply don't eat there. However for Cedar Point or any other place to refuse or discontinue a business relationship because of someone's religious beliefs just would not be right and may even be illegal based on the fact that religion is a protected class and terminating a business relationship based on religion may violate someone civil rights. I will leave that comment to the "lawyers" of the forum to debate.

I think it is important to note. I do not believe the CEO stated he would refuse to serve homosexuals. He justed stated he believes in tradtional marriage. Now what is really wrong with this belief?

CPJim123 said:
Chick-fil-A is a privately held family business. The CEO has a religious belief in the tradtional form a marriage, a man and a woman. Why are towns such as Boston refusing to allow a business to build just because of a religious belief?

Maybe they just prefer higher quality chicken joints like KFC. After-all it's a Boston tradition.

My conservative, christian sis tried pulling the "you have a problem with a fast food chicken place who doesn't like homosexuals but you support the oil producing countries who have killed homosexuals" argument on me. While I would LOVE to use much less oil, it is a necessity for most to be able to function in their daily lives.
All of us can get by without unhealthy, fast-food chicken.

Why am I not surprised that some of the immature above chose to jump on a one letter typo rather than respond to a valid point?

And I wasn't aware that the necessity of an item has any bearing on the alleged "hate and bigotry" associated with one's decision to purchase the item.

Because your point is not valid. You're attempting to derail the entire point of the conversation, which is Chick-Fil-A at Cedar Point (and in general, I guess); not what giant oil companies do. Not what Wal-Mart does, or Hobby Lobby.

So it gets no response.

That said, CPJim, you are missing the point. No one is upset that he is expressing his beliefs. That is a beautiful thing. In fact, kudos to Cathy for speaking his mind. That has nothing to do with it.

TheNewGuy said:
Why am I not surprised that some of the immature above chose to jump on a one letter typo rather than respond to a valid point?

And I wasn't aware that the necessity of an item has any bearing on the alleged "hate and bigotry" associated with one's decision to purchase the item.

I don't see a valid point here or I would respond to it.

CPJim123 said:
Chick-fil-A is a privately held family business. The CEO has a religious belief in the tradtional form a marriage, a man and a woman. Why are towns such as Boston refusing to allow a business to build just because of a religious belief? I am sure he is not the first Catholic CEO. He may be one of the first to have the guts to express publically how he feels and now he is being persecuted for pubically expressing his belief.

He has a entitiled to his opinion. If you do not like it, simply don't eat there. However for Cedar Point or any other place to refuse or discontinue a business relationship because of someone's religious beliefs just would not be right and may even be illegal based on the fact that religion is a protected class and terminating a business relationship based on religion may violate someone civil rights. I will leave that comment to the "lawyers" of the forum to debate.

Its not religion! if you go back and read the post that started this thread you'll see nothing about religion. Supporting the "traditional marriage" and giving money to an organization so help traditional families, makes it an anti-gay view anyway you look at it. I don't believe Cedar Point would want to be associated with a company that offends a large population, for the reasons I stated in the original post. NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!

CPJim123 said:
He has a entitiled to his opinion.

Just as people who do business with CFA are. What is the difference between one individual not doing business with them and an entire company not doing business with them? Just as it's ok for CFA to express their beliefs, its also ok for another to disagree and sever ties with CFA. There is nothing illegal about that.

Alright for the two knuckleheads who came in to try and make objectors out to be against religious beliefs. A simple read of the entire thread will show that this has already been discussed and that nobody has a problem with religion. The problem people have is with the company supporting the insertion of religion into laws that oppress the civil rights of other people. What Exxon does or any other company does is irrelevant because this is the issue people choose to stand up against. This is the issue advocates are standing up for and just because a person chooses to support a particular cause or doesn't have time to take part in every cause, doesn't mean they are a hypocrite. That's a silly thing to say.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of those making an argument against CFA is hardly unrelated to the thread.

I've had enough. All this talk has me craving a chicken sandwich. Gotta stop for gas on the way though.