CFA - is the punishment valid or illegal?

[BlaqueKatt]

The CFA opinion that homosexuality is wrong and their support of groups trying to work against it is no different than my opinion and support of the opposite.
It is just that. An opinion..

Incorrect it's a belief, it has been stated as a belief, and one that causes harm to others(which is why it's wrong, claiming it's "just an opinion", is not a "get out of consequences free card") , and people act on beliefs. Are you actually trying to say all ideas/belifs/opinions are equally valid?* If you are please explain to me how the people that belive raping an infant cures HIV are no differnt than those that find the act abhorrant. What about those that believe murdering physicians that provide women's health service is a moral imperative to save lives? Or say NAMBLA's belief that they should be allowed to have sexual relations with children? I guess we should let all criminals that say they believe what they did was right should be free.
opinion-judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof
Belief-confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
they are NOT synonomous.

While you may not adhere to the same beliefs, to insult and brow-beat someone over it and then asking them to support what you want instead of what they were raised to believe
If you want to change the minds of people in this country... maybe show a bit of respect for those who differ in opinion and stop trying to FORCE them to change their feelings on the matter via the law books.

funny, that's EXACTLY what they are attempting, and succeeding at because NO ONE is standing up to the bullies. And forcing others to live under laws based off nothing more than religious beliefs is bullying. There has NEVER been a single non-religious argument for denying civil rights to an entire group of people.
I guess passing laws against polygamy and child molestation is wrong, as muslim beliefs allow marriage between adult men and children as young as five, and multiple wives.

It will take time to change minds. Be patient. Be respectful.

Just like they are. Good thing those pesky blacks gays kept quiet while being denied equality instead of getting all uppity and demanding change, having marches, passing laws, repealing other laws. Yup being patient and respectful of discrimination is what helped the civil rights movement in the 60's. Also the authors of the Jim Crow laws were just as right as those who abolished them, just like those of us on the side of science and the courts now are obviously wrong.(homosexuality has been proven to be genetic, and the courts are striking down DOMA left and right as violation the equal protection clause)

christian article on tolerance

Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.
Treat all people with respect, but be willing to show them where their ideas have gone wrong.
The view that one person’s ideas are no better or truer than another’s is simply absurd and contradictory.
To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.

*If I express my desire that someone deserves harm, I'd be laughed out of court if my defense was "it's just an opinion, you can't say it's wrong"

Saying "in my opinion the sky is chartreuse with lavender stripes" does not make it correct, facts are facts-opinion-judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof

Also It's not "hating on religion" to say your bigotry is unacceptable, especially when the only basis for it is a 3000 year old book of dubious authorship and veracity, due to it's multiple translations, revisions, and outright "rewrites".

[Fuzzykitten99]

Just like they are. Good thing those pesky blacks gays kept quiet while being denied equality instead of getting all uppity and demanding change, having marches, passing laws, repealing other laws. Yup being patient and respectful of discrimination is what helped the civil rights movement in the 60's. Also the authors of the Jim Crow laws were just as right as those who abolished them, just like those of us on the side of science and the courts now are obviously wrong.(homosexuality has been proven to be genetic, and the courts are striking down DOMA left and right as violation the equal protection clause)

christian article on tolerance

...

The company, not just those that make money from it, donates to groups that want to put people in jail or deport them for being gay. Why would you support a company that does this? The Declaration of Independence declares "that all men are equal." It's depressing that we had to pass amendments to note that "all men" includes blacks and women and we'll have to pass another to note that gays are part of that equation, too.

It baffles me that anybody would support a group so against American ideals while waving a banner claiming to support American ideals. >_<
...

^-.-^

Kind of like those who protest wars and defame and insult the US military men and women who work daily to ensure that those same protestors can say what they want without being obstructed?

The bolded items is another reason why the cause is getting more push-back... comparing 'gay rights' to civil rights struggles of the 60's.

Many of the black community find it very offensive, especially when many are very devout Christians of all denominations. Your argument offends them just as much as 'whitey'. Especially as conservative as much of them can be.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The right for someone to marry someone else of the same sex exists for no one. Or is it the argument that you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Because if you want to ask for equality, you need not. You have it. I, as a straight female, cannot marry another female, regardless of their sexual orientation. Thus our rights are the same. To to call it 'equal rights' is an invalid argument to begin with.

There aren't 'gay' or 'straight' water fountains, restrictions on who can sit where on public transportation, and even separation in restaurants.

The civil rights era of the 60's was about removing a real economic oppression of a class of peoples. Their rights were restricted and oppressed because of the color of their skin.

see this article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...l-rights_n.htm

...With gays, we are not looking at roped-off communities or at the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage. We are certainly looking at the workings of prejudice, which, in all its guises, ought to be condemned. But because that prejudice is not linked to a system of economic oppression that will leave gay communities permanently incapacitated, the lack of social acceptance faced by gays — and even the violence visited upon those identified as gay — will not necessarily haunt their descendants generations after attitudes begin to change. So while the gay struggle is about changing attitudes, and laws that grew out of bigoted thinking, it is not about creating a pathway to opportunity (though gay marriage does confer certain economic rights) where none now exists. ...
-snip-

...This is not to say that certain communities should not work harder, including some conservative sectors of the black community, which have been hostile to gay appeals for acceptance. But as surely as the civil rights movement led to the mainstreaming of easily integrated blacks, the gay movement is leading to the mainstreaming of conventional-minded gays. And, eventually, we will look back, with slightly embarrassed bemusement, at the time when people seriously debated the morality of same-gender couples falling in love. We will chuckle that the U.S. government came up with anything as ridiculous as "don't ask, don't tell," and that we ever believed sexual orientation could tell us anything about another person's worth.

But that moment will not come any sooner by suggesting a false equivalency — or by arguing that the end of one movement has flowed naturally into another. It would be much more fruitful, I think, to ponder how the two movements can co-exist, and perhaps even reinforce each other, as they pursue their related, but also very different, goals. ...

More articles on the falsities of comparing the two:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...f=black-voices

YouTube video (please watch this... it really makes you think about the argument as a whole):

There is NO Comparison.

[Andara Bledin]

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either a liar or ignorant.

The whole kerfuffle over "The Civil Rights Movement" is disingenuous, at best. Just because there has been one that has been much more notable and far-reaching does not lead to there not being other civil rights movements. Just like The Great Depression is not the only depression in history.

No, gays aren't as persecuted as blacks and women have been. Mostly because you cannot, reliably, tell if a person is gay just by looking at them. This is the same reason we threw Japanese people into internment camps, but Germans and Italians got a pass; we could spot Japanese on sight but the other two were much more difficult.

The whole "the right of someone to marry someone else of the same sex" is bullshit. Marriage is a contract and, to be quite honest, the restriction of the marriage contract to only be held by male and female partners is inherently sexist and, ultimately serves no purpose.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

The right for someone to marry someone else of the same sex exists for no one. Or is it the argument that you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Because if you want to ask for equality, you need not. You have it. I, as a straight female, cannot marry another female, regardless of their sexual orientation. Thus our rights are the same. To to call it 'equal rights' is an invalid argument to begin with.

so you are forbidden by law to marry the person you love?

if not you have a right they don't have, don't you?
Is that equal?

and I seem to remember my mother marching in birmingham to the taunts of "N*gger lover" because she couldn't marry the man she loved because she was white and he wasn't, I marched alongside my friends M and J to taunts from the ever so loving religious groups(of various denominations) of "dyke loving bitch, rot in hell"

but they aren't even close-gotcha.

I've run into a large number of african americans that are offended because they may lose their victimhood status and ability to blame others and demand reparations, they don't want to share the spotlight, they are the ONLY minority that has ever struggled with oppression, discrimination, and inequality, they start frothing at the mouth if you even suggest that the japanese from WWII deserved reparations because those affected were still alive and they don't because no one that experienced slavery is still alive.

It's the american way, "I got mine, fuck you"

Federal law says you can't discriminate against race, however in 29 states it is 100% legal to discriminate, fire, refuse to rent to...etc. for being gay.

[Nekojin]

It all comes down to a very simple principle. If someone else (or several someone elses) are doing something that doesn't harm you in any way, you should not have any right to prevent them from doing it.

Gay people getting married doesn't infringe on straight people's rights at all. Especially since there's no "right" to force your beliefs on someone who doesn't believe the same way you do.

[HYHYBT]

First, I'll just say that the local Chick-fil-A's drive-thru was backed up half a mile or more down the road, well across the interstate, and the parking lots of the nearby mexican restaurant, hotel, and KFC were full of cars, mostly belonging to CFA customers as well. (The KFC was a dead giveaway, as it closed down long ago.)

The whole "the right of someone to marry someone else of the same sex" is bullshit. Marriage is a contract and, to be quite honest, the restriction of the marriage contract to only be held by male and female partners is inherently sexist and, ultimately serves no purpose.

I see allowing men, but not women, to marry women as no different logically than allowing men, but not women, to become lawyers... and the fact that women, but not men, may marry men doesn't fix that any more than allowing women, but not men, to become teachers fixes the other.

As for civil rights... the details are different, but the principles are the same.

[Gravekeeper]

Kind of like those who protest wars and defame and insult the US military men and women who work daily to ensure that those same protestors can say what they want without being obstructed?

I'm failing to see how protesting war is suppose to be a bad thing. Also, the war activity that has been protested in recent American history has had shit and all to do with protecting freedom of speech. It's been a damn long time since you've fought anyone to protect those.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The right for someone to marry someone else of the same sex exists for no one.

It exists for everyone up here in Canada, oddly enough. God hasn't wiped us off the face of the Earth for it, either. In fact, seeing as we have a higher quality of life, better health care, a better economy, a better education and a better global reputation, I'd say he's giving us the thumbs up.

You guys should try it out. ;p

[PepperElf]

Muslims, Jews, and Catholics (large population of which is Latino) do as well. Many of the more prominent religions have very similar base belief system.

I don't see anyone advocating a boycott against Muslim-owned businesses and the like.

That's a good question to ask... why only CFA?


Or perhaps a better question is... what's preventing it from happening to those businesses?

If you allow a government official to punish a company illegally over beliefs or donations, then who else can be punished? Meaning... they might not be exempt from being illegally punished if this is allowed to stand.


As I said before, even the ACLU is against this punishment.
That says a lot right there. After all the ACLU is such a big supporter of liberal causes... are they now wrong for saying that the laws apply to everyone, not just people they like?

Something to think about.


If you allow the laws to be ignored just to punish someone you dislike... what's stopping someone else from punishing you, or someone you like for the same things?

[crashhelmet]

I am laughing my ass off at this

[Andara Bledin]

An article at The Daily Beast from someone who is gay and works at Chick-Fil-A.

^-.-^

[Dreamstalker]

I think the underlying issue with Mayor Menino and CFA in Boston is the location. There are a few CFA's in malls in the outlying areas here (which nobody cares about), but to put one smack in the middle of Boston, near the Freedom Trail...that's just off. He did attempt to compromise by asking CFA corporate to amend policy to abide by city/state law (can't discriminate based on sexual or marital status), but they refused.

[PepperElf]

I think the underlying issue with Mayor Menino and CFA in Boston is the location. There are a few CFA's in malls in the outlying areas here (which nobody cares about), but to put one smack in the middle of Boston, near the Freedom Trail...that's just off. He did attempt to compromise by asking CFA corporate to amend policy to abide by city/state law (can't discriminate based on sexual or marital status), but they refused.

Except that their corporate policy DOESN'T discriminate on sexual orientation.

I already linked that one too.

but here - straight from the Cow's mouth - it's the first item actually. FAQ

The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our Restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

[crashhelmet]

Except that their corporate policy DOESN'T discriminate on sexual orientation.

I already linked that one too.

but here - straight from the Cow's mouth - it's the first item actually. FAQ

And what did it say prior to all of this recent hoopla?

I'd bet my paycheck that it didn't include the last line about leaving marriage equality to the government and political arena. I wonder if orientation was in there as well.

[Andara Bledin]

First off, regarding the FAQ: It's the first item because it's news. It's also worth noting the phrase "going forward" which means that it doesn't necessarily reflect prior policy. Plus, it will be interesting to see whether they actually do leave it to government or continue to throw gobs of money at groups dedicated to preventing marriage equality.

That said, I don't believe that they do have a policy of discrimination based on sexual preference. Their actual policy isn't nearly as clear-cut or benign.

Plus, in the case of Menino in Boston, his letter to CFA never said anything about blocking them from locating there. He said that their presence would be insulting and would taint the freedom that the citizens enjoy there, but made no mention at all about abusing his position to keep them out.

Image of letter hosted at Facebook (no login required)

He also made statements last week that him using his authority to block them would be an abuse and that he would not do that and that his initial reaction was a mistake. But stories that give people an excuse to cry about being repressed are far more interesting than stories that take those excuses away, so it's getting a lot less press.

Over 8000 news outlets reported about Menino's original statement: only 3200 bothered to follow up with his retraction.

Article at the Boston Herald

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

The problem with that letter is what's at the top of it - the official city seal.


It means he's not writing the letter as a citizen, but as a government official. Some government officials try doing that - using their elected office's letterhead to add weight to their personal statements.

They're not suppose to however. They are suppose to keep their own personal letters on their own private stationary. They're not suppose to write personal opinion essays and then slap the city letter head on top as if their personal views are now being echoed by the government.

It implies that the government is backing the personal opinions - which then becomes a Freedom of Speech issue since he is criticizing CFA & the owner on the owner's personal beliefs and donations.



The government HAS NO RIGHT to criticize someone's personal beliefs. This is what I've been saying all along. If you grant him that right then ... that means any other government official can use their office to criticize someone for supporting gay rights too, or for any other belief that the citizen is refusing to be silent about.

Freedom of speech & religion isn't a "civil right" - it's a CONSTITUTIONAL right.


However the letter doesn't mean that he never said it. Even the Huffington Post stated that "The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company's president spoke out publicly against gay marriage."

And again that's the HP, a liberal paper.


but don't let us ignore that the champion of liberal rights - the ACLU - has also agreed that all of this is illegal anyway. They said they cannot support any of this because if they do, then it opens the way for government officials to ban companies for supporting gay rights too.