Chick-fil-A Ban

djDaemon said:

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

Really? And you don't have conservative values, so you know this... how? I give money to many Christian charities. I can only assume that they preach conservative values, which goes toward encouraging people to act and teach the same. It's the advancement of an ideology, no different than what Chick-fil-a is doing . I don't see the "enormous" difference you speak of.

Not yet. Just because something isn't done today doesn't mean it won't be done tomorrow.

Really? We are all expected to follow future, possible, maybe-they-will-be-written laws??

If you continue to engage in bigotry? You can and SHOULD be called out on it.

Please reference the post where I engaged in bigotry.

MaverickLaunch said:
Really? And you don't have conservative values...

The primary problem here is that you think "conservative values" are the same thing as "religious values". They most certainly are not, and as someone who does hold some conservative values, I find that insinuation troubling.

Please reference the post where I engaged in bigotry.

MaverickLaunch said:
I love Chick-fil-a. I love their values.

Obviously, the context of this thread's discussion relates to Chick-Fil-A's position and actions regarding same-sex marriage. It's been clearly established that Chick-Fil-A is engaging in bigotry. And in your above response, you point out that your views align with theirs.
And then there's this:

My religion (a protected class) teaches not to support gays (an unprotected class).

I see you're trying to make it seem like you're simply not supporting same-sex marriage. Supporting a group (Chick-Fil-A) that opposes same-sex marriage doesn't mean you're not supporting same-sex marriage. It means you're actively trying to prevent that group from obtaining civil liberties.

And that is bigotry, plain and simple.

Wow, that took you a while, and I'm not surprised, you found some way to really REACH the conclusion you had already, in your mind, come to. Guilty by double-substitution? I'd be ashamed to have posted such a reaching conclusion, but then, I guess you were in the box and had to do something.

I have no use for further discussion here. Nobody's going to change their minds. And name-calling might be against the terms of use (it is on most sites) so I would be really careful if I were you.

It means you're actively trying to prevent that group from obtaining civil liberties.

And that is bigotry, plain and simple.

If only the dictionary definition of that word supported your argument, I'd say "You've got me!"

Thread is TL;DR

But to the OP... Have you ever heard mumbles menino speak? The guy makes George W Bush look like the best speech giver ever.

As far as CFA, they make good Chicken. I eat there regularly.

What I really dislike is GM and Dodge and Bank of America etc legally stealing billions from the American people and nobody giving a crap. Don't steal from me.

I also saw another thing going around lately about Jimmy John's and the owner/founder going off to Africa to shoot animals. More power to him, and it made me hungry enough to rush down to the Jimmy Johns here in Norman and buy a delicious tasty sub sandwich. I think it's great he patronized everything from the airlines to a safari company in africa and got the proper permits to help fund wild life in Africa and did it rightfully with money he earned legitimately.

But some people can't get past the 'he shot poor animals' as they are eating their hamburgers from McDonalds not realizing what a hipocrit they are.

Wow! I come home from work and see that this topic has grown faster than any of the multiple threads about the new ride. I don't really have too much to add to it because my feelings have already been stated by myself and so many others have said what I wanted to say for me.

There is one comment that has gotten under my skin so much I can't ignore it. So here goes...

MaverickLaunch said:

I just don't see why we need to make such a public fuss over it.

To that I say, "because voiceless people are so much easier to control and suppress."

MaverickLaunch said:
Let's not use wiki as a defining source of what bigotry means.

If you don't like being labeled as a bigot, perhaps the definition isn't what you should be trying to change.

Just sayin'.

djDaemon said:

MaverickLaunch said:
Really? And you don't have conservative values...

The primary problem here is that you think "conservative values" are the same thing as "religious values". They most certainly are not, and as someone who does hold some conservative values, I find that insinuation troubling.

I agree with this 100% dj.

I have very conservative values especially when it comes to fiscal policies. Unfortunately the whole 'conservative' thing has been perverted by Republicans into being 'their thing'. So conservative values to them means completely different things than conservative values to most of us.

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

Really? Where I work it certainly is.

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.

Wrong. Being anti-gay is exactly the same as being racist, when acted upon. Discrimination is discrimination.

^ Not in the eyes of the Federal government, nor a vast majority of the states.

Not sure where you work, and don't care. We're not talking about where you work. So when you say "wrong", you can only say that as it applies to your small corner of the universe. You don't get to decide what's acceptable for the country or states.

Beyond that, if you have issue with the laws, you can certainly cast your vote for someone who feels differently.

I wouldn't call the vast majority of major universities (nationwide), private colleges, and federal & state jobs a small corner of the universe. Sexual orientation has been written into nearly every anti-discrimination law everywhere I have traveled or group I have spoken to. And that's a lot of companies.

It's ok. I take solace in the fact that open minds, cooler heads, and love will win the day. It's only a matter of time before DOMA is history, and we all take a step towards equality. Progress is made each and every day.

Millions of people once felt that it was right...in the name of God...to treat black individuals like second-class humans. History shows those who felt that way (and still do) in a certain light. Those who oppose equal rights for gay men and women will be shown in the same light.

djDaemon said:

Cedar Creek Mine Ride said:
I think the definition of marriage is a fair question and being against the expansion to it to include same sex is by no means anti-gay...

Don't kid yourself - it very much is an anti-gay position.

Marriage existed long before Christianity existed. And, as is the case with many Christian traditions, Christianity "adopted" a Pagan concept and made it their own. I wonder how Christians would feel if some other religious group came along and re-defined marriage as being between a man and a lawnmower.

People who try and define marriage as a particular, specific, exclusionary thing are at the very least ignorant, and at worst hateful, hypocritical bigots.

I don't want to make this too big an argument (especially since I'm several pages back), but I could not disagree with you more here. I personally support legal gay marriage, but it is patently wrong to call someone bigot or anything else because they don't hold the same view for all the same reasons it was wrong to call someone against McCarthy anti-American.

Ignore religion entirely and focus on the reasons for marriage and its role in society (both historical and contemporary). You can make good arguments about its role with preserving roles within the family as a reason not to expand it to same sex marriage. Now I don't agree with those arguments, but I think calling people ignorant/bigots because of those views is wrong and ignorant itself since it cuts off debate.

Edit: Sorry I went off a little here. This is just one of my biggest pet peeves. I hate how legit debate on so many issues is stopped because one side is automatically labeled racist, intolerant, soft, etc.

djDaemon said:

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.

I am not going to defend the specific groups, because I don't know what they do. Maybe they are that bad.

If all they are doing though is supporting maintaining the traditional American definition of marriage though, that does not make them bigots. Being a bigot implies they are anti-gay in the sense that they believe gays are lesser humans.

If the mere opposition to same sex marriage makes one a bigot, then there is little argument for opposition to multiple partner marriages also not being one. In either case, a redefinition of our traditional American marriage must occur. The only reason the latter is seen differently is there isn't widespread support for it.

Kevinj said:
Millions of people once felt that it was right...in the name of God...to treat black individuals like second-class humans. History shows those who felt that way (and still do) in a certain light. Those who oppose equal rights for gay men and women will be shown in the same light.

This......1000 times over.

Thanks to Cedar Creek Mine Ride for lending his maturity and insight to the conversation. All I've been asking for here is not to be labeled as a bigot for my views. I'm not asking anyone to agree with my beliefs. I'm not running around hurling insults at gays. (dj's fallacious argument to the contrary, notwithstanding). Frankly, I don't care what they do.

Please, just don't call people names. Really. Is that so difficult? Someone doesn't agree with you, so you call them a name? I think most of us are out of grade school, so this should be easy-peasy (as my 7 year old likes to say).

And after all that, I find myself wondering why this topic has not been put out of it's misery... per the rules of the forum, see #4.

http://pointbuzz.com/Forums/Thread/14492.aspx

Cedar Creek Mine Ride said:

I am not going to defend the specific groups, because I don't know what they do. Maybe they are that bad.

Yes, they really are that bad. Here's an example of the sort of "family " groups that Chick-fil-a has donated to...

In 2009 WinShape (The covert name of Chick-fil-a's charity arm) donated $12,500 To Focus On The Family. FOF has been listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries on their website is an essay by their founder that states.. "Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them." "the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids."

That's a pretty defamatory statement. One that fuels fear, hatred and ridicule. judging from the organizations that Chick-fil-a supports, it's pretty safe to say that they believe gays are lesser humans.

Good food, who cares about the rest.

...thought Chewbacca, moments before being caught up in a net.

I wouldn't stop eating at a restaurant simply because I disagreed with their stance on gay marriage. I go to Chick-fil-A to eat chicken, not to support gay marriage.