Chick-fil-A Ban

GoBucks89 said:
If Cedar Point saw a meaningful reduction in visitors in the park that could be tied to CFA or money from CFA (assuming Cedar Point gets some share of profits or fees based on revenue at the CFA location at CP), then it seems likely that CP would look to make a change.

Great point. This is not an issue Cedar Point is concerning itself over (or should). It's all about money.

MaverickLaunch said:
So you're saying I have a right to do anything I want, so long as my own beliefs justify it, regardless of any laws allowing or disallowing it?

We're talking about personal liberty.

Gay marriage is a personal liberty. Whether or not anyone agrees with the practice is irrelevant. It doesn't impact anyone outside the marriage, so it's not anyone else's business.

MaverickLaunch said:

JuggaLotus said:
A right is a right, regardless of whether a law is in place to protect that right.

Fail.

So you're saying I have a right to do anything I want, so long as my own beliefs justify it, regardless of any laws allowing or disallowing it?

You can't have it both ways.

http://www.fotoblography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/straw-man.jpg

Chief Wahoo said:
Well, I'll say this: Cedar Point is going to have to make a move before Chik-Fil-A does. Here is a company...a fast food company at that...that puts principal before profits. I mean...imagine the amount of revenue they lose every single weekend for not being open on Sundays.

Show me something comparable in today's corporate climate and it too is uniquely rare.

I'm not saying it is something to admire, just saying any efforts to change Chik-Fil-A are going to be rebuffed because money doesn't seem to be a significant motivator.

Agreed. Cedar Fair was obviously not scared off by the fact that they had strong religious ties when they allowed them into their parks.

djDaemon said:

MaverickLaunch said:
So you're saying I have a right to do anything I want, so long as my own beliefs justify it, regardless of any laws allowing or disallowing it?

We're talking about personal liberty.

Gay marriage is a personal liberty. Whether or not anyone agrees with the practice is irrelevant. It doesn't impact anyone outside the marriage, so it's not anyone else's business.

Oh great, now we have another definition at play. :)

To my understanding, you have freedom to practice your rights.......as long as they don't infringe on the lives/rights of others. That's how things are (suppose) to be passed in congress.

Passing a law that says "Marriage is defined as a blah blah blah between a man and a women" and directly restricts same sex couples is, IMO, non constitutional because they are then denied certain rights regarding their relationship to that person (hospital visitation etc etc).....which, I think, can be viewed as an infringement on their rights.

Alas, DOMA states it so same sex marriage is not recognized at a federal level. It leaves it to the states to decide....which is fine since that's how things are suppose to work in the US. But since a vast majority of the country is scared that a man/man or woman/woman union or marriage will somehow unravel the very fabric of society, it's denied and shunned all together in those states that are most closed minded.

When all is said and done, I'll just never understand how a right, privilege or liberty can be denied to anyone when it has ABSOLUTELY NO AFFECT ON YOUR LIVES. The fact that DOMA exists at all and the fact that people want this whole country to be a "gays cant marry" nation sickens me to no level. But that's one of the many things you have to accept in todays society and hope changes with new generations.......which seems to be the course.

And some of you may be too young to remember how Clinton turned his back on the homosexual community and signed DOMA into law. Until that point, he had actually been a supposed backer of gay rights.

But Adam, just keep your last point in mind. There is no doubt...zero...that the tide is turning. Even conservatives are jumping on board, and the more heterosexual Christians that support gay rights (and those numbers are on the rise), the better. Supporters of gay rights are now in the majority. People do care.

I agree that the tide is turning. But I am not sure the supporters of gay rights are now in the majority. It will take time. Forty years ago, homosexuality was officially considered to be a mental illness.

The latest research...polls, surveys, etc., show that the tide "broke" about 4-5 years ago. All research shows that by a slight margin, supporters of gay rights are indeed in the majority.

Here's a taste of the good news...see especially the "changing attitudes" link.

http://www.pewforum.org/Topics/Issues/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/

Surveys of teens, 20-somethings, and 30-somethings are overwhelmingly supportive.

In other words, anti-gay activists like Cathy are literally a dying breed. And not a moment to soon. I can happily say that if either my daughters (4 and 10 months, respectively) is indeed a lesbian, she will be able to marry her girlfriend in whatever state she wishes. I really believe that.

JuggaLotus said:
Except Marriage, at it's most basic secular level, is a contract between two consenting adults.

Unless of course those two adults are the same gender. Then for some reason, they aren't allowed to enter into a legally binding, mutually agreed upon contract.

Which brings me to *my* fundamental position on the marriage issue:

Why does the government recognize ANY marriage?

Legally, it is a contract. As such, it should be available to any compatible combination of legal entities. Perhaps limited to a pair of legal entities to keep it simple.

Your *clergy* may have other ideas, but that is not a *legal* problem.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Isn't it due to tax related issues?

Well, there's an easy solution to that Adam.

It comes down to money specifically insurance companies who pad the pockets of politicians and have no desire to see any extra people falling under plans in which they have to pay for.

As for the governmental part, the history of America is one of escaping religious persecution but many of the new england colonies had much stricter laws based on religion than many would find in Europe at the time. Theres no doubt that at this juncture the government needs to keep "marriage" because of all the pratices already in place such as in regards to tax, divorce rights, etc. I think the biggest hangup for gay marriage is the fact that the governmental terminolgy is the same as the religious when in fact the two are very different insitutions that have two different purposes..

Chuck Wagon said:

Chief Wahoo said:
Well, I'll say this: Cedar Point is going to have to make a move before Chik-Fil-A does. Here is a company...a fast food company at that...that puts principal before profits. I mean...imagine the amount of revenue they lose every single weekend for not being open on Sundays.

Show me something comparable in today's corporate climate and it too is uniquely rare.

I'm not saying it is something to admire, just saying any efforts to change Chik-Fil-A are going to be rebuffed because money doesn't seem to be a significant motivator.

Agreed. Cedar Fair was obviously not scared off by the fact that they had strong religious ties when they allowed them into their parks.

Cedar Fair at the time was micro-managed by a conservative Catholic and Republican which had an influence on his decision making.

Ouimet? I would guess he is much more accepting of diversity, differing cultures, etc. and I am sure he would rather not see a large food service operation sit empty on Sundays. Bring on the Knott's famous chicken dinners!

Some of you keep stating (even in bold, italics, etc) that whether or not gays marry has no effect on anyone else's lives

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I don't want my kids thinking that's ok. Those are our religious views. That does not make me a bigot. Just a Christian.

Bottom line: you don't get to say what does or does not impact other people. You are not other people. Therefore you are distinctly unqualified to make such a statement.

Chick fil A was pretty busy today. I'd be interested to see if sales have gone up or down in the wake of this issue.

^ that makes you a bigot. The simple fact that you can look at someone and say you are wrong you need to change is a horrible way to live your life! What if your children turn out to be gay. I see one of two things happening there, They will either be shunned by their father and feel alone and worthless or they will hide and spend their life in the closet, they will never be happy and never be able to truly connect to a person they way they should feel free to.

If your are a religious person great! if you believe and it works for you makes you happy and your life complete that's great! and I mean it, but don't EVER force your belief on your children teach them about your beliefs and encourage them to learn and form their opinions.

TheNewGuy said:
I don't want my kids thinking that's ok. Those are our religious views.

Ok, so just tell them what you want them to think and let others marry who they want. Why should two people not marry each other just because of your kids?

How do we even know the views of Matt Ouimet? Thats a pretty big assumption and you'll need to provide some links to substantiate that.

This actually reminds me of a quote from Louis CK.

It doesn't have ANY effect on your life. What do you care? People try to talk about it like it's a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say 'How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men are getting married?' I dunno, it's your sh!tty kid, you fu@kin' tell 'em. Why is that anyone else's problem? Two guys are in LOVE but they can't get married because YOU don't want to talk to your ugly child for five fu@kin' minutes?