Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

[Rusty Shackleford]

Does it strike anybody else that much of this argument has been done before, in the segregated south of the 50s and 60s? White business owners didn't want to have to serve black customers, wanted to ensure that black people weren't allowed to do some of the things they were allowed to do. To me, this seems like exactly the same argument, just with 'gay' instead of 'black'.

There's a flip side to that, which is that those laws restricted firms that wanted to not discriminate. So if you were a white business owner with your heart in the right place back then, those laws prevented you from acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs. You could be hauled into court for serving African-Americans.

But doesn't the law as it's written now prevent you from acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs if you're racist and it forces you to serve black people? Why do we force racist southern white business owners (a stereotype I know, but for purposes of illustration...) to serve black people, but we don't force religious southern white photography companies to serve (photograph) gay couples? What's the difference?

I'm going to bow out of this argument. It's not going anywhere productive that I can see. I'll end by simply saying that I can't understand why somebody would be against gay marriage, and I pride myself on generally being able to see both sides of an issue. If the Bible tells you that being gay, and by extension gay marriage, is wrong and that's what you want to believe, then so be it, but as far as I can tell, doing so forces you to disregard one of the 10 commandments. You can hardly love your neighbor when you're telling him he can't get married, but you can, or that you'll photograph this straight couple's wedding but not that gay couple's. It's nobody on Earth's place to judge or condemn in this situation - if you're Christian, that's God's role. Your role is to love your neighbor, allow him the same rights you have, and if he sins (by being gay, or being gay and getting married) God will levy the appropriate punishment at the appropriate time.

 

[doctorquant]

But doesn't the law as it's written now prevent you from acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs if you're racist and it forces you to serve black people? Why do we force racist southern white business owners (a stereotype I know, but for purposes of illustration...) to serve black people, but we don't force religious southern white photography companies to serve (photograph) gay couples? What's the difference?

There's little/no difference, other than we as a society have settled on the former as OK (well, I am OK with it, but I don't want to speak for others around here).

I'm going to bow out of this argument. It's not going anywhere productive that I can see. I'll end by simply saying that I can't understand why somebody would be against gay marriage, and I pride myself on generally being able to see both sides of an issue. If the Bible tells you that being gay, and by extension gay marriage, is wrong and that's what you want to believe, then so be it, but as far as I can tell, doing so forces you to disregard one of the 10 commandments. You can hardly love your neighbor when you're telling him he can't get married, but you can, or that you'll photograph this straight couple's wedding but not that gay couple's. It's nobody on Earth's place to judge or condemn in this situation - if you're Christian, that's God's role. Your role is to love your neighbor, allow him the same rights you have, and if he sins (by being gay, or being gay and getting married) God will levy the appropriate punishment at the appropriate time.

Well put.

 

[doctorquant]

Suppose you were a Muslim and you practiced law here in the U.S. Suppose someone came into your office and requested your assistance in drawing up a loan contract. Further suppose you're one of the many, many Muslims with a deeply held conviction that the charging of interest is forbidden. For you to accommodate this potential client's request requires you to play a role in something that absolutely is against your conscience. Should you be required to do this work or face some governmental sanction?

If people who are "genetically predisposed to paying interest" ever become a protected class of people, then yes.

LOL ... from the looks at my statement of financial position, I might just qualify for that class!

 

[YankeeFan]

A heck of a reach, but as the only atheist/agnostic on my staff of four, I was the only one assigned to write the stories on the uber-religious driver and on the retiring MRO chaplain.

I expressed how uncomfortable I was, but the assignment stood. I wrote them. It wasn't my cup of tea, but I did it.

Not trying to be a deck, but what made you uncomfortable about this? The fact that you would be expected to play up their religiosity as a positive attribute?

 

[Stitch]

Can a grocery store owner refuse to sell food to someone if the owner knows the food will be used at a gay wedding? Can a hotel not sell a room to a gay couple, but allow straight couples to get a room?

 

[Big Circus]

Can a grocery store owner refuse to sell food to someone if the owner knows the food will be used at a gay wedding? Can a hotel not sell a room to a gay couple, but allow straight couples to get a room?

Or, for that matter, TELL them to get a room.

 

[imjustagirl]

A heck of a reach, but as the only atheist/agnostic on my staff of four, I was the only one assigned to write the stories on the uber-religious driver and on the retiring MRO chaplain.

I expressed how uncomfortable I was, but the assignment stood. I wrote them. It wasn't my cup of tea, but I did it.

Not trying to be a deck, but what made you uncomfortable about this? The fact that you would be expected to play up their religiosity as a positive attribute?

the fact I'd have to interview people about a faith I have no knowledge of. And I'd have to explain their faith and what it means in their life with no background or understand of why or how that would happen.

Also, just writing about people crediting their life to god. Because it's not something I believe.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Suppose you were a Muslim and you practiced law here in the U.S. Suppose someone came into your office and requested your assistance in drawing up a loan contract. Further suppose you're one of the many, many Muslims with a deeply held conviction that the charging of interest is forbidden. For you to accommodate this potential client's request requires you to play a role in something that absolutely is against your conscience. Should you be required to do this work or face some governmental sanction?

If people who are "genetically predisposed to paying interest" ever become a protected class of people, then yes.

LOL ... from the looks at my statement of financial position, I might just qualify for that class!

I was going to say, my brother has become their lead activist ... he doesn't mind racking it up, he just has a philosophical opposition to paying it.

 

[Stitch]

Is exploiting people getting married by charging an exorbitant amount for wedding photos just as much of a sin as supporting gay marriage?

 

[YGBFKM]

So, really, this is all just about semantics and homophobic Christians being offended by the fact they don't get to dictate how the word marriage is defined in our evolving culture?

No, this is about a wedding photographer in New Mexico being forced, under penalty of law, to photograph a wedding that she finds gravely at odds with her beliefs.

No different than someone who runs a snack bar being required to serve gay people. If you run a business, it's open to everyone. So, too bad for the homophobic wedding photopgrapher.

I find this an unsettling argument, but I have to admit that it's largely consistent with other arguments we've had here. Basically you're saying that if you're involved in any economic activity, you have no realm of sovereignty (for lack of a better word). You do what government says, period. You don't have to take that notion very far to get into some pretty terrifying (to me) territory with respect to government.

With all due respect, you have GOT to stop believing that protecting minorities impinges on some sort of personal freedom. I realize that you want to believe in the freedom of markets, but the world doesn't work this way, and we're better off for it.

You are NOT being oppressed because you can't discriminate against someone, and it's offensive to suggest that you are.

But if you're concerned about the government interfering with economic sovereignty, then we'll get rid of the patent office and have a truly free market.

Does it strike anybody else that much of this argument has been done before, in the segregated south of the 50s and 60s? White business owners didn't want to have to serve black customers, wanted to ensure that black people weren't allowed to do some of the things they were allowed to do. To me, this seems like exactly the same argument, just with 'gay' instead of 'black'.

The separate "Rainbow Rest Room" was a bit much.

 

[Oggiedoggie]

I think that this whole dust-up was created by Chick-fil-A folks to draw attention away from some of their own fairly touchy gender issues.

For years, they've been using cows as their spokes animals, completely ignoring the fact that most of the beef in hamburgers doesn't come from cows at all. The overwhelming majority of beef served in the United States comes from emasculated male cattle. They would be bulls by choice, but that choice (along with a few choice bits) was taken away.

But, folks have more sympathy for the cuter mommy cows. "Oh, let's eat a chicken sandwich and save them!" The few cows that do wind up in hamburger are the over-the-hill stock from dairy or breeding herds, not the bucolic Holsteins that hold Chick-fil-A's advertising banners.

I guess that they figured that a castrated male bovine holding an "Eat Mor Chiken!" sign just wouldn't have the same effect.

 

[doctorquant]

Is exploiting people getting married by charging an exorbitant amount for wedding photos just as much of a sin as supporting gay marriage?

Enjoy (likely NSFW):