Chick-fil-A Ban

Madison Avenue folks are quick to point out that one day of record sales isn't going to offset the potentially irreparable long-term damage to the brand. People like to engage in divisive politics so long as they're not on the losing side of it, and that balance has already shifted just slightly in favor of same-sex marriage (polls tend to put it around 51% for, 46% against, with the margin for error).

TheNewGuy said:
http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=1629994...._pageNum_1

Something that is lost on a lot of friends that I talk with about same sex marriage: when it comes to rights, majorities are irrelevant. Majorities don't need rights because they can do what they want under our majority rules system. Its minorities that need the protection of rights. And the right of the majority to do what it wants is limited by the rights of the minority.

As already noted, marriage is not a right. No one has a right to get married. Marriage is a privilege created by statute. If every state in the country repealed their marriage laws this afternoon, no one would be able to do anything about it. No one could go down to their local courthouse and demand that their local judge marry them. So by definition, its not a right because rights cannot be taken away/limited by the government.

The right at issue is equal protection of the laws. We all have that right under the federal constitution and I believe all of the states' constitutions. That dual approach is why the California same sex ban (an amendment to the California constitution) was found to be unconstitutional: it violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. States can grant more rights but they cannot grant fewer than the feds. Basically, if a law is going to discrimminate against any group or groups, it needs a very good reason if its a protected class and a good reason if its not. Its tough to find a good reason for blocking same sex marriages other than its traditional and some people do not like it (though those are not in the end good reasons).

In the end, the courts will probably be the ones to deliver same sex marriage rights. Legislatures and executive branches tend to be too tied up in majority rule to deal well with rights. That typically upsets the majority because they think they should be able to get what they want. So the courts are blasted with "legislating from the bench" though its not the first time and won't be the last.

The magnitude of oppression is obviously not the same, but so what? It's still oppression, and that ain't cool, nor is it in keeping with personal liberty.

I think the magnitude of the oppression matters. I think its disingenuous to compare the situation of slaves to same sex couples who can't get married. That doesn't help the discussion. Though, as you noted, its disingenous to say that we should only have traditional marriages as we don't really have those now. What they are really saying is they only want marriages that make them comfortable but thats not as easy to rally behind as traditional.

I think everyone should read 99ers signature.

Jeff said:
Madison Avenue folks are quick to point out that one day of record sales isn't going to offset the potentially irreparable long-term damage to the brand. People like to engage in divisive politics so long as they're not on the losing side of it, and that balance has already shifted just slightly in favor of same-sex marriage (polls tend to put it around 51% for, 46% against, with the margin for error).

I am sure Cathy understands that although he his views are deeply held and sincere, there are people who will disagree with them and as such, the business may be hurt by his statements/support. But he did it anyway. Seems to me he deserves credit for that (even though I disagree with his principles in this situation). He put his principles above making money. How many times do you hear people say they wish businesses would do that? Maybe not a surprise for the company as they are closed on Sundays. And the company didn't create the appreciation day yesterday so its not like they were looking to drum up business because of what Cathy did/said.

Franchise holders may be upset. Not sure if what has happened is a breach of their agreements. Or how many folks are waiting in the wings for franchise locations. That is a risk you take when you get a franshise.

CFA may take a long term hit. Though it seems just as likely to me at this point that everything blows over and no lasting impact occurs. The media loves to overdramatize. As does Madison Avenue. Politicians will not doubt latch onto this and run with it for as long as they can. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an entire presidential debate devoted to same sex marriage and birth control (though the birth control issue seems to have died down at least at this point).

Time will tell.

Yeah, I dont buy the whole "51% support gay marriage so chick-fil-a will fail in the long run" argument. Chic-fil-a may limit their market but if the left over market is more supportive than an "average market", it could more than wash. Heck, they're not even open Sundays, which one would think would hurt a lot too.

If we knew all the things companies support and do we'd have a hard time shopping anywhere. Kudos to them for at least saying what they believe in.

Kyle2154 said:
Yeah, I dont buy the whole "51% support gay marriage so chick-fil-a will fail in the long run" argument. Chic-fil-a may limit their market but if the left over market is more supportive than an "average market", it could more than wash. Heck, they're not even open Sundays, which one would think would hurt a lot too.

If we knew all the things companies support and do we'd have a hard time shopping anywhere. Kudos to them for at least saying what they believe in.

yep kudos for stopping peoples rights. thats what America is all about, taking away freedoms. one day maybe we can make sure interracial couples cant marry or even divorced women. or maybe we can one day be as free as most of Europe. The right of an american is to say and feel what ever you want. what is not a right is taking others rights away because its not how you want to live your life.

Dragsterwiz said:
... The right of an american is to say and feel what ever you want. what is not a right is taking others rights away because its not how you want to live your life.

Oh the irony...

Europe has issues with same sex marriage/civil unions as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/world/europe/on-gay-marriage-europe-strains-to-reconcile-27-interests.html?pagewanted=all

I support legal same sex marriage, but I despise when the courts make ruling forcing allowing it. The courts only have the power to interpret the law, not to make it. If they are granted the right to make it, then they must be democratically accountable. The California voters, for better or worse, voted on what marriage was. Neither the state nor federal constitution was ever meant to force the the government to recognize same sex marriage inspite of marriage existing for the entire duration of both constitutions. Given that nothing has changed in human biology, that the laws were not meant to force recognition of same sex marriage (and that point was never questioned for 200 years), and that the wording is not a crystal clear that it should exist, the courts ruling that it must be recognized is utterly inexcusable.

To put this better in perspective, imagine the queen of England telling us that she was making same sex marriage legal everywhere in America. Would any of us give her any weight? Right on the issue or not, I'd hope we all recognize she has zero power to make a decision here. The courts are the same way. They are given remarkable power to overturn what democratically accountable legislatures/executives put into place. That power is fine if, and only if, their power is limited to examining the law and interpreting it as written and intended. They cannot use their own morality to decide the place of laws or else we are accepting that courts morality is superior to the people (and yes for the record, I disagree with a host of other decisions on similar logic).

Back more onto gay marriage in general, long term its going to win out. It's a generational issue more than anything. I remember in college speaking to a group of Republicans in the mid-2000s. Ohio easily passed a traditional marriage amendment and it passed the state easily. All of the Republicans there (not that identify as Republican anymore) voted against it. The future of the right in the US is libertarian based on current patterns.

I wonder if Chick-fil-A likes Chick on Chick action?

I will add though that the thing that annoys me most on this issue is that having different views on this issue carries too much weight with people. It's OK to disagree with someone on it. It's not OK to judge a whole person and label people because of their position.

Being gay doesn't make you any less of a person. Being in support of legal same sex marriage doesn't mean you want to completely alter society or religion. On the other side, it's not bigoted to feel that marriage exists to support the natural role of man and women in creating and raising children. Maybe that's not a good approach to take, but it's certainly valid enough to accept that some reasonable people could come to that conclusion without feeling a gay person is any less of a human.

Cedar Creek Mine Ride said:
I support legal same sex marriage, but I despise when the courts make ruling forcing allowing it. The courts only have the power to interpret the law, not to make it. If they are granted the right to make it, then they must be democratically accountable. The California voters, for better or worse, voted on what marriage was. Neither the state nor federal constitution was ever meant to force the the government to recognize same sex marriage inspite of marriage existing for the entire duration of both constitutions. Given that nothing has changed in human biology, that the laws were not meant to force recognition of same sex marriage (and that point was never questioned for 200 years), and that the wording is not a crystal clear that it should exist, the courts ruling that it must be recognized is utterly inexcusable.

Technically this is not correct. They arent making any law through their actions. They are simply taking the law made (California's vote) and interpreting the Constitution of California to see if it falls under it. Does the court have a huge amount of power? Absolutely. Thats why Presidents try to hard to get as many Supreme Court justices they can to try to influence the courts for years to come. The way the balance of power works for the federal government is for all three branches to have equal power. Through interpreatation of the law/Constitution they get to decide which laws stay and which ones go. they have never written nor created their own law.

Cedar Creek Mine Ride said:
They are given remarkable power to overturn what democratically accountable legislatures/executives put into place. That power is fine if, and only if, their power is limited to examining the law and interpreting it as written and intended.

So you're saying courts can only look at a law and say "yep, they crossed their t's and dotted their i's. No problem here."? The court's very job is to make sure that the laws passed are within the framework of the constitution.

Let's say the voters of some state decided the first amendment no longer applies and passed a law by majority vote saying anyone who identifies themselves as a Christian will be arrested. It's not the court's role to throw that out just because it was passed by a majority of the voters? In this country, it doesn't matter one bit what the majority wants if it's not within the rules of the constitution.

Like others have said, it's the equal protection clause in our constitution that these courts are looking at here. If something violates that (like banning gay marriage) then the courts have a duty to throw that law out, even if 99.9% of all Americans agree with it.

Cedar Creek Mine Ride said:
...it's not bigoted to feel that marriage exists to support the natural role of man and women in creating and raising children.

That's a completely arbitrary description of what one segment of the population feels marriage is, or should be. Why do you get to decide that marriage is? And why does that description just so happen to align perfectly with the Christian definition? We're a secular society. Religious definitions of legally-recognized institutions should not be relevant.

...it's certainly valid enough to accept that some reasonable people could come to that conclusion without feeling a gay person is any less of a human.

I don't care what people think about gay marriage. The point here is that some people are trying to legally prohibit a particular group of people from enjoying the same opportunities that they themselves enjoy.

dj, there are certain people who will evolve on this issue and others that will keep their views and opinions, no matter what you say. I'm a gay man who has been arguing for equality for quite a while and have changed views some people have of people like me. Other people are just beyond hope. Fortunately, the younger generations are becoming more open-minded and accepting and the older generations are going away.
I am a prototype machinist who has worked in factories for 20 years and have witnessed many people change their views of gay people for the better.
dj, I want to let you know that I appreciate the fight you are putting up because I was about to start banging my head up against the wall because it seems like I would get a more intelligent response from the brick and mortar it is made of than some of the ones who are arguing against you.

Kevinj said:
But Cody, by eating at Chick-fil-A, you are anti-gay...that's the point.

A portion of every dime you give them supports discrimination.

I'm sorry but that is very naive statement, rather unintelligent as well.

By eating Chic Fil A I am satisfying my craving for chicken and pleasing my appetite. Nothing more.

Plus people simply do not understand the most basic part of the first amendment, "free exercise of" Chic Fil A is freely exercising their religious beliefs. Now if they were refusing service to gays that would be different, but they are not.

Also, I find it funny when people want to bring up spending money at a controversial place (like this) and how said customer is then supporting whatever cause....yet nobody realizes just how much of their spending goes toward individuals/corps that support all sorts of controversial things. From politicians to celebrities in film and in sports.

Every time you fill up your gas tank you are supporting somebody's agenda, and probably not a good one either.

I need gas...its a nessecity in our society. I can live without a chicken sandwich. Thats a rather unintelligent comparison.

Gas is not a necessity. Major convenience, yes- necessity, no.

vwhoward said:
I need gas...its a nessecity in our society. I can live without a chicken sandwich. Thats a rather unintelligent comparison.

No it is a very real and legit comparison. The point is don't go telling people they are supporting cause X b/c they frequent an establishment without acknowledging that frequenting establishments in general across the board supports cause Y in some way shape or from.

Every time you buy a pair of shoes you're probably supporting some slave lord on another continent. Most of the population has no clue to exactly what causes their money goes to once it leaves their hand.

...and trust me you don't need gasoline. I'm no environmental whacko but you've been programmed to think you need gasoline.