Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

[Football_Bat]

I've always thought Chick-fil-A was misogynistc.

By putting cows in the ads and having them misspell simple words like "more" and "chicken," Chick-fil-A's implication is clear: Females are not smart.

And should not be eaten.

that's exactly what i said, then suddenly it became a black thing.

Giggle.

 

[cranberry]

Can somebody, anybody, after 17+ pages of arguing, explain how an individual- heterosexual or homosexual- has a "right" to a marriage license from the state?

Channeling TP, you can't be this dense, can you?

Let's just say that I am as dense as you think I am. Fine.
I am not asking the question rhetorically. I genuinely would like to know
what case can be made that one has a right to a marriage license.

Near as I can tell, one cannot in this country be discriminated against on
the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin,or disability.
Please explain under which one of these areas "sexual orientation" fits and why.
If it doesn't fit under one of these existing categories, please explain your
rationale for adding "sexual orientation" to the list.

I am genuinely curious what you think.

As I'm sure you know, sexual orientation isn't and doesn't need to be a subdivision of one of the other categories you list for gay folks to be considered a class of people against whom there has been widespread discrimination. Hence the "dense" suggestion.

 

[hondo]

A large part of the nation does not believe it's a civil rights issues. Start with any black church congregation.

A large part of the nation is wrong, and your race-baiting doesn't change that.

How is it race-baiting to point out that a majority of African-Americans, especially those who attend church, are against gay marriage and resent the comparison to the civil-rights struggles in the 1960s? I'm not the one against gay marriage here. I could care less. Knock themselves out. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of boycotting a fast food place because its CEO has a particular view on a particular social issue.

 

[jaydaum]

Can somebody, anybody, after 17+ pages of arguing, explain how an individual- heterosexual or homosexual- has a "right" to a marriage license from the state?

Channeling TP, you can't be this dense, can you?

Let's just say that I am as dense as you think I am. Fine.
I am not asking the question rhetorically. I genuinely would like to know
what case can be made that one has a right to a marriage license.

Near as I can tell, one cannot in this country be discriminated against on
the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin,or disability.
Please explain under which one of these areas "sexual orientation" fits and why.
If it doesn't fit under one of these existing categories, please explain your
rationale for adding "sexual orientation" to the list.

I am genuinely curious what you think.

As I'm sure you know, sexual orientation isn't and doesn't need to be a subdivision of one of the other categories you list to be considered a class of people against whom there has been widespread discrimination. Hence the "dense" suggestion.

1.] Perhaps you do not understand words like "civil rights" and "discrimination."
2.] Reread my post. Slowly.

You cannot discriminate against people on the basis of race, color, sex, religion,
national origin, or disability. Where does "sexual orientation" fit into the existing,
constitutionally recognized categories? If it doesn't fit, explain your rationale
for adding it to the list.

Thank you for tolerating my density.

Still waiting for the case for the right to a marriage license.

 

[YGBFKM]

Nothing has made me want a Chick-Fil-A sandwich more than 20 pages of debate surrounding Chick-Fil-A.

 

[jaydaum]

If you don't see that the history of discrimination against gay people now warrants their inclusion on that list, then, I'm sorry, but you really are dense.

If it is so obvious then please take a moment and answer the question.
Saying, in effect, "you are dumb for not knowing the answer" is not an answer to the question.
And don't forget to tie it to an explanation of how anyone has a right to a marriage license.

 

[jaydaum]

If you don't see that the history of discrimination against gay people now warrants their inclusion on that list, then, I'm sorry, but you really are dense.

If it is so obvious then please take a moment and answer the question.
Saying, in effect, "you are dumb for not knowing the answer" is not an answer to the question.
And don't forget to tie it to an explanation of how anyone has a right to a marriage license.

They absolutely have a right to a "marriage license." Everyone, regardless of orientation, race, religion, etc., has a right to decide who they want to fall in love with and spend their lives with.

Can they get married in a church? Probably not, and it's not for anyone to say how churches can or cannot operate. But gay people should absolutely have the same right everyone else has, no matter who grants the "marriage license."

Are the existing laws regarding marriage license issuance preventing anyone from "falling in love" or "spending their life" with anybody? If they "absolutely" have a right to a marriage license, what is the "absolute" you are invoking?

 

[cranberry]

They have a right to be granted the same benefits as straight couples. The reason I put "marriage license" in quotes is because state governments granting civil unions is the same thing. If that gives them the benefits of being "married," I'm fine with that.

To that point, five federal courts have already struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional under the equal protections clause. The rest of it is just silly semantics for bigots.

 

[doctorquant]

No banana pudding shake right now. Peach is the seasonal flavor.

Ever have one of the Christmas-time mint ones? Oh my word ...

 

[jaydaum]

So, thus far we have had no case made for why anyone, heterosexual or homosexual,
has a right to a marriage license from the state in the first place. Without that, it is difficult to
establish how not being issued a marriage license constitutes discrimination.

We also haven't seen any attempt to argue that "sexual orientation" fits under
a citizen's constitutional right to not be discriminated against on the basis
of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or disability.

Nobody has put forth an argument to provide the basis for adding
"sexual orientation" to the list of discriminations one should be constitutionally
protected from.

Some of you want to throw around phrases like "gay rights" and "right to marriage"
and "same civil rights as heterosexuals" without answering the above, which is fine,
just don't be expected to be taken seriously when you have no intellectual foundation
to your opinion. You aren't arguing- you are saying the equivalent of "I like dogs and not cats."
We don't make and change laws according to tastes...

 

[Inky_Wretch]

No banana pudding shake right now. Peach is the seasonal flavor.

Ever have one of the Christmas-time mint ones? Oh my word ...

Pales in comparison to Braum's egg nog shake.

 

[Stitch]

So, thus far we have had no case made for why anyone, heterosexual or homosexual,
has a right to a marriage license from the state in the first place. Without that, it is difficult to
establish how not being issued a marriage license constitutes discrimination.

We also haven't seen any attempt to argue that "sexual orientation" fits under
a citizen's constitutional right to not be discriminated against on the basis
of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or disability.

Nobody has put forth an argument to provide the basis for adding
"sexual orientation" to the list of discriminations one should be constitutionally
protected from.

Some of you want to throw around phrases like "gay rights" and "right to marriage"
and "same civil rights as heterosexuals" without answering the above, which is fine,
just don't be expected to be taken seriously when you have no intellectual foundation
to your opinion. You aren't arguing- you are saying the equivalent of "I like dogs and not cats."
We don't make and change laws according to tastes...

For some reason, being "Christian" to you seems to end with homosexuals.

And what of the "Christian" whose version of the Kingdom of God is to elect all the right politicians to legislate their neighbor instead of doing the difficult work of loving their neighbor?