Chick-fil-A Ban

Jeff said:

I said:
This isn't about knowing what every business is about or what they support. That's a straw man argument. We know what this company is about, because their executives have made it quite clear and public.

GoBucks89 said:
So you do research on every business that you patronize?

Which part of what I said is confusing? I don't generally check with people to see if they're racists either, but if I know that they are, I don't associate with them.

If you were the only one who had posted in this thread, your response above might make some sense.

GoBucks89 said:
For many, redefining "marriage" to mean something other than between a man and a woman is problematic.

Well, that's their problem. I don't care how difficult it is, I refuse to bow to bigotry and hate simply to take the path of least resistance.

That's not how you bring about positive cultural change.

Its also the problem of every same sex couple who cannot have the law recognize their unions because of the hangups with the definition of marriage for many.

I think your approach is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

And there have been huge amount of positive cultural changes in terms of same sex couples over the last 20-30 years. Are we there yet? No. But there has been a lot of progress.

So, where do we draw the line? I'm not religious, but I'm married to an opposite-sex partner. Under the new provision, do I have to alter my marriage license or get it replaced with a union license? Do I have to get divorced, then get united under a civil union? And who pays for all of that, by the way?

This solution strikes me as very "separate but equal".

I dunno. I get what you're saying about perfect being the enemy of the good. I just don't think such compromise is healthy when it comes to civil rights.

Or, in the wise words of Michael Bolton: "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."

Alright alright, I've been convinced. I'll stop eating it when I go to CP. I didn't mean to sound like I don't appreciate what others are doing for me, because I do. I don't read much into topics like this, because they usually just end up making me mad or upset. The way I looked at it was just that they donate money for bad things, but I don't think about the fact that it puts down millions of people. I apologize for sounding like an a-hole, because I really don't think I am. Thanks for opening my eyes a little.

djDaemon said:
So, where do we draw the line? I'm not religious, but I'm married to an opposite-sex partner. Under the new provision, do I have to alter my marriage license or get it replaced with a union license? Do I have to get divorced, then get united under a civil union? And who pays for all of that, by the way?

I have no idea where my marriage license is much less what it says on it. If the law was changed such that the union between my wife and me is now called a civil union (with the same legal benefits, responsiblilties, etc.) rather than a marriage, I highly doubt I would care to have a new license issued. Seems to me that if someone wanted a new one issued, one could be issued at pretty low cost. No reason to get a divorce and then united under a civil union. Though if someone does seek at some point down the road to dissolve a civil union, they would need to follow the same steps that are followed now to dissolve civil marriages. Whether they take steps to dissolve it under the rules of their religion (assuming they were also married in a church) is up to them. No change from where we are today.

This solution strikes me as very "separate but equal".

How is it at all separate? Everyone would be in a civil union. In the eyes of the law, everyone would be equal. Nothing separate about it. And no one has a right to be married in any particular church (at least not unless they follow that church's rules).

Or, in the wise words of Michael Bolton: "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."

I think that anyone who quotes Michael Bolton in a discussion should automatically have points deducted from his score. :)

This would be as good a place as any to note that you're trying way too hard to be rococo in your posts.

Edit: @Sophia^

GoBucks89 said

"I think that anyone who quotes Michael Bolton in a discussion should automatically have points deducted from his score. "

It made me laugh! Not Michael Bolton the singer but Michael Bolton from Office Space.

GoBucks89 said:
How is it at all separate?

As I've been saying all along, the idea you put forth is, in an ideal sense, just fine. In a practical sense? Not so much. Marriage is quite ingrained in our secular culture. I don't see why bigotry of some should make us change that, even if it is the path of least resistance.

I think that anyone who quotes Michael Bolton in a discussion should automatically have points deducted from his score. :)

And I think anyone unfamiliar with Office Space should meet a similar fate. :)

tcgolfer said:
Looks like it could have all been made up by the media?

The media made up the part about the company donating to groups that work to prevent gay marriage?

Also, found this Reddit post quite intriguing.

***EDIT***

Nothing to see here.

Sorry Mr. Bolton. My 80s pedigree betrayed me there. Points deducted. :)

tcgolfer said:
The man never said anything about gay marriage.

Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion, as it doesn't change the fact that Chick-Fil-A donates millions of dollars to anti-gay groups.

Like he said in his quote, "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'"

The comment about marriage strikes me as doublespeak and/or damage control. Their words don't matter. Their actions do.

He also commented on the fact that they donate to a charity that works with families that need help.

Unless that family is gay, and wants to get married, of course. In that case, they donate to groups that do the opposite of help.

tcgolfer said:
Like he said in his quote, "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'"

Its not like god decreed that marriage is between a man and a woman only in some type of writing in god's own handwriting, right? Its just what certain folks a few thousand years ago believed was what god told them to write (translated many times in many different languages since then). So how can we be so sure that we don't have it wrong today? How can we be so sure we wouldn't be correcting the defintion of marriage to what god actually wants?

Alright. Strike my words from the records.

I really did not intend to post again on this thread, but I continue to be offended that those with more conservative values are being called "bigots" and guilty of "discrimination".

Let's be clear about one thing. Comparing those who don't support gay marriage, to people who, let's say, don't like black people, is a ridiculous comparison. Racism <> Anti-gay. Period. Full stop.

Don't believe me? Ask the government. While race, gender, religion, etc are all protected classes, sexual orientation is not (please do not quote the hate crime law as evidence to the contrary). In many states, including Michigan where I live, I as a landlord am free to disqualify tenants for my rental properties on the basis of sexual orientation. I have never done so (or had such an opportunity) but I would be absolutely, 100% within my legal rights to do so as a law abiding citizen.

So until the laws state something different (and I suspect they someday will), please don't call me a bigot. Because the hypocrisy of that statement is beyond absurd. My religion (a protected class) teaches not to support gays (an unprotected class). Bigotry, to me, is hatred towards a protected class.

Anyway, who really cares. It's a chicken sandwich for crying out loud. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet. We all do this on a daily basis. If the world really feels that Chick-fil-a is wrong in their statements, they will go out of business, right?

Maverick, you might want to actually read the definition of bigotry before you say that you're not guilty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Wasn't this country also founded on slaves being 3/5th of a person?

I don't like boycotts. Lets face it, unless you grow your own food and build your own home and furnishings, walk to your destinations, crap and piss in a hole and cover it up when you are done you are in some way contributing to some "evil" organization. I've personally never stepped foot in a Chick-fil-A, but I'm sure I've shopped at places or bought from companies that support or fund something I don't agree with.

I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott. If there is something that directly affects you or affects a cause you care about, then by all means go ahead. I just don't have the time to do it.

As a Christian I'm told to believe in things that I simply don't. There isn't one religion out there that caters to the "perfect" set of beliefs because everyone is different. The only belief I take away is to love one another. If two men or two women want to remain committed to each other for the rest of their lives, who the hell cares? Better yet, if they want to raise children and raise them in a way that makes them productive to our society and contributes something positive to the world, why deny them the right? As life goes on things change. I'm not the same person I was 10 years ago, my views were different and it looks like the rest of the world's view on gay marriage is changing. It doesn't mean everyone needs to accept it, but it doesn't mean you have get militant about it either.

I guess what I'm saying is "can't we all just get along?"

~Rob

^^ Let's not use wiki as a defining source of what bigotry means.

Generally speaking, bigotry is the intolerance of a differing opinion. I'm not intolerant of it. I just don't support it.

Taking this a step further, those of you who are intolerant of the statements made by Chick-fil-a could also be called bigots... using the same dictionary definition of the word.

I say again, if you don't like it, don't eat there! But I think asking CP to throw them out is a little much. Some of us like their food!

Ah, the old "You're intolerant of the intolerant!" fallacy. Nice.

MaverickLaunch said:
...I continue to be offended that those with more conservative values are being called "bigots" and guilty of "discrimination".

By all means, please point me to the post that suggested someone with "conservative values" was a bigot.

I'll save you the time - the post doesn't exist.

Having conservative values is enormously different from donating to groups that actively lobby to prevent a particular group from obtaining civil liberties.

While race, gender, religion, etc are all protected classes, sexual orientation is not...

Not yet. Just because something isn't done today doesn't mean it won't be done tomorrow. And I can almost guarantee that eventually, homosexuality will be a protected class. Bigotry will eventually give way to common sense, if history is to be used as our guide.

...please don't call me a bigot.

Not practicing bigotry is a far more effective way to get people to remove that label from you. If you continue to engage in bigotry? You can and SHOULD be called out on it.