Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

[cranberry]

Fair enough and I would say to you and Cranberry on that point that the definition of the word "right" is
the salient element of this entire argument.

People keep screeching about blacks and women etc. etc. but there is a HUGE distinction.
Yes, you cannot legally be discriminated against for WHO you are-
race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, disability.
Same-sex marriage is not about who you are, it is about what you DO,
it's a action, i.e. I want to marry someone of the same gender.
THAT places it outside the scope of "rights" and puts it inside the scope
of things we vote on as a community.

So as I have stated before, the onus is on someone to explain how sexual orientation
fits INSIDE discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, or disability.
OR, you can argue that sexual orientation belongs as an addition to that list and provide a basis for THAT.

At first I thought you were trying to make some kind of legal distinction, but your "who you are vs. what you do" theory isn't close to how courts decide what classes of people to protect. In fact, I believe California has already barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing it "strict scrutiny" standard I mentioned a couple posts ago.

I will grant that the "who you are vs. what you do" distinction is definitely debatable [especially in the case of discrimination relating to religion] but the principle there is the foundation of discrimination laws. You cannot discriminate on the basis of things that people cannot control. We discriminate against things people do all the time. It's a great question and it's the salient point in this whole debate.

No, it's not even debatable. Sexual orientation isn't something you do and discrimination (such as denying the benefits that accrue with marriage) based on sexual orientation is wrong.

 

[Stitch]

It's only debatable because people think legalizing gay marriage destroys the concept of marriage in the long run, despite the fact heterosexuals have been ruining marriage without the help of homosexuals for several decades.

 

[doctorquant]

It's only debatable because people think legalizing gay marriage destroys the concept of marriage in the long run, despite the fact heterosexuals have been ruining marriage without the help of homosexuals for several decades.

I keep hearing this argument from pro-same-sex-marriage supporters and I don't know whence it comes. I have never heard anyone on the contra side say same-sex marriage "threatens" hetero marriage in this sense.

 

[Stitch]

Family Research Council disagrees.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=bc04c02

So does James Dobson.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/january/21.60.html

http://www.christianbookpreviews.com/christian-book-excerpt.php?isbn=1590524314

 

[doctorquant]

Family Research Council disagrees.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=bc04c02

So does James Dobson.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/january/21.60.html

http://www.christianbookpreviews.com/christian-book-excerpt.php?isbn=1590524314

OK, so now I've heard (or at least read) someone on the contra make that argument ...

 

[jaydaum]

Fair enough and I would say to you and Cranberry on that point that the definition of the word "right" is
the salient element of this entire argument.

People keep screeching about blacks and women etc. etc. but there is a HUGE distinction.
Yes, you cannot legally be discriminated against for WHO you are-
race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, disability.
Same-sex marriage is not about who you are, it is about what you DO,
it's a action, i.e. I want to marry someone of the same gender.
THAT places it outside the scope of "rights" and puts it inside the scope
of things we vote on as a community.

So as I have stated before, the onus is on someone to explain how sexual orientation
fits INSIDE discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, or disability.
OR, you can argue that sexual orientation belongs as an addition to that list and provide a basis for THAT.

At first I thought you were trying to make some kind of legal distinction, but your "who you are vs. what you do" theory isn't close to how courts decide what classes of people to protect. In fact, I believe California has already barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing it "strict scrutiny" standard I mentioned a couple posts ago.

I will grant that the "who you are vs. what you do" distinction is definitely debatable [especially in the case of discrimination relating to religion] but the principle there is the foundation of discrimination laws. You cannot discriminate on the basis of things that people cannot control. We discriminate against things people do all the time. It's a great question and it's the salient point in this whole debate.

No, it's not even debatable. Sexual orientation isn't something you do and discrimination (such as denying the benefits that accrue with marriage) based on sexual orientation is wrong.

I guess it IS debatable since even within the LGBT community, THEY debate the whole nature/nurture/free choice angle
and see it as a whole big part of this discussion... but what do THEY know?

 

[Tom Petty]

Again.... is the Chick-Fil-A controversy about blacks?

I come to SJ expecting members here to have common sense and/or critical-thinking skills. I believe you own those skills and are intentionally playing ignorant. I refuse to play along with intentional dummy posts.

It's a legit question that you don't want to answer because, A. you don't have an answer, or B. it blows your argument out of the water.

And one of the quickest ways to get African-Americans mad is to compare their struggle in the 50s and 60s to gay rights. There have never been separate water fountains or restaurant counters or bathrooms or schools for gays.

Absolutely 100 percent agree. But I don't thik our confused friend will. He's still reading something in this news item that makes him think this is about blacks. Maybe he thinks LBJ is still president. If blacks are in it, and LBJ is still president, please, please alert me.

good god, could you people act any more dense? it has nothing to do with black people. it has to do with civil rights. the point i was making was that there wasn't any law on the books before the 1960s, which was spurred on directly by dog's post.

good god, you people play stupid rather well. maybe it isn't an act.

Yes, everyone's stupid except for you. We bow and thank the Lord you're here to set straight those of us who have the audacity to disagree with you.

Why don't you run for something if you have all the answers and the knowledge.

i guess everyone got it but you and dog. seemed pretty forking simple, champ. honestly didn't seem as though i needed to comment again myself, until you decided to chime in. i honestly thought you were playing stupid

That's an interesting take on people who won't agree with you. Must make you all comfy and cozy in your bizarre intellectual world so you don't actually have to argue an issue on its merits. It is pretty forking simple to have this chain of thought: "I believe this ... you believe that .... you're stupid, nanny, nanny boo-boo."

Easy. And intellectually dishonest.

it's intellectually dishonest that i think you are playing stupid because i refuse to believe that you don't understand that a good portion of this country thinks gay marriage is a civil issue? i could give two shirts, tiger. call it what you want.

Again.... is the Chick-Fil-A controversy about blacks?

I come to SJ expecting members here to have common sense and/or critical-thinking skills. I believe you own those skills and are intentionally playing ignorant. I refuse to play along with intentional dummy posts.

It's a legit question that you don't want to answer because, A. you don't have an answer, or B. it blows your argument out of the water.

And one of the quickest ways to get African-Americans mad is to compare their struggle in the 50s and 60s to gay rights. There have never been separate water fountains or restaurant counters or bathrooms or schools for gays.

Absolutely 100 percent agree. But I don't thik our confused friend will. He's still reading something in this news item that makes him think this is about blacks. Maybe he thinks LBJ is still president. If blacks are in it, and LBJ is still president, please, please alert me.

good god, could you people act any more dense? it has nothing to do with black people. it has to do with civil rights. the point i was making was that there wasn't any law on the books before the 1960s, which was spurred on directly by dog's post.

good god, you people play stupid rather well. maybe it isn't an act.

And this guy is just flat insulting and offers nothing, including a pretty solid failure at answering questions. Tom, how many threads have you shut down with your personal crap? Kinda the poster boy for what the moderators say gives them headaches, no?

And once again, you've dodged my question, FWIW.

and you continue to grasp to the ignorant schtick rather well. did i say the CFA issue was a black issue? i suggested that it was a civil rights issue then you focused on black and white.

And the last resort to losing an argument: "I don't care."
You saying I "play stupid" doesn't make it true. I merely consider the source.

good enough then, champ.
this is what it's come down to: you either are playing stupid, or you believe a portion of the nation does not believe it's a civil rights issue.
which is it?

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

so, you were playing stupid.
and you had the sac to call me dishonest. christ.
and the gap isn't as wide as you'd like to think. here's a poll from the only source i'm sure you trust: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/31/poll-65-percent-democrats-support-gay-marriage/

 

[Oggiedoggie]

I think that they cut their waffle fries the way that they do so as to expose the maximum amount of surface area to take on the hot oil and salt, creating a product that is simultaneously rather yummy but, quite possible, one of the least healthy recipes by which one might eat a potato (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

[Baron Scicluna]

All right, that is different than the "Why is the sky blue?" quailty of the "Why do people have a right to get marriage licenses?"

I still think we're suffering from a disconnect about how the word "right" is used. In this context I'm looking at it from a legal protection standpoint, and I think many other people are as well.

Fair enough and I would say to you and Cranberry on that point that the definition of the word "right" is
the salient element of this entire argument.

People keep screeching about blacks and women etc. etc. but there is a HUGE distinction.
Yes, you cannot legally be discriminated against for WHO you are-
race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, disability.
Same-sex marriage is not about who you are, it is about what you DO,
it's a action, i.e. I want to marry someone of the same gender.
THAT places it outside the scope of "rights" and puts it inside the scope
of things we vote on as a community. [Unless you believe
that homosexuality is genetic, which some do and that's an interesting discussion...]

So as I have stated before, the onus is on someone to explain how sexual orientation
fits INSIDE discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, or disability.
OR, you can argue that sexual orientation belongs as an addition to that list and provide a basis for THAT.

Couldn't religion be seen as "what you DO" instead of "Who you ARE"?

A person can always choose a different religion. It's a different action, as you put it.

 

[Stitch]

Fair enough and I would say to you and Cranberry on that point that the definition of the word "right" is
the salient element of this entire argument.

People keep screeching about blacks and women etc. etc. but there is a HUGE distinction.
Yes, you cannot legally be discriminated against for WHO you are-
race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, disability.
Same-sex marriage is not about who you are, it is about what you DO,
it's a action, i.e. I want to marry someone of the same gender.
THAT places it outside the scope of "rights" and puts it inside the scope
of things we vote on as a community.

So as I have stated before, the onus is on someone to explain how sexual orientation
fits INSIDE discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, or disability.
OR, you can argue that sexual orientation belongs as an addition to that list and provide a basis for THAT.

At first I thought you were trying to make some kind of legal distinction, but your "who you are vs. what you do" theory isn't close to how courts decide what classes of people to protect. In fact, I believe California has already barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing it "strict scrutiny" standard I mentioned a couple posts ago.

I will grant that the "who you are vs. what you do" distinction is definitely debatable [especially in the case of discrimination relating to religion] but the principle there is the foundation of discrimination laws. You cannot discriminate on the basis of things that people cannot control. We discriminate against things people do all the time. It's a great question and it's the salient point in this whole debate.

No, it's not even debatable. Sexual orientation isn't something you do and discrimination (such as denying the benefits that accrue with marriage) based on sexual orientation is wrong.

I guess it IS debatable since even within the LGBT community, THEY debate the whole nature/nurture/free choice angle
and see it as a whole big part of this discussion... but what do THEY know?

What's your point? Even if it was a choice, it's still discrimination.

Now why are you against gay marriage?

 

[hondo]

Again.... is the Chick-Fil-A controversy about blacks?

I come to SJ expecting members here to have common sense and/or critical-thinking skills. I believe you own those skills and are intentionally playing ignorant. I refuse to play along with intentional dummy posts.

It's a legit question that you don't want to answer because, A. you don't have an answer, or B. it blows your argument out of the water.

And one of the quickest ways to get African-Americans mad is to compare their struggle in the 50s and 60s to gay rights. There have never been separate water fountains or restaurant counters or bathrooms or schools for gays.

Absolutely 100 percent agree. But I don't thik our confused friend will. He's still reading something in this news item that makes him think this is about blacks. Maybe he thinks LBJ is still president. If blacks are in it, and LBJ is still president, please, please alert me.

good god, could you people act any more dense? it has nothing to do with black people. it has to do with civil rights. the point i was making was that there wasn't any law on the books before the 1960s, which was spurred on directly by dog's post.

good god, you people play stupid rather well. maybe it isn't an act.

Yes, everyone's stupid except for you. We bow and thank the Lord you're here to set straight those of us who have the audacity to disagree with you.

Why don't you run for something if you have all the answers and the knowledge.

i guess everyone got it but you and dog. seemed pretty forking simple, champ. honestly didn't seem as though i needed to comment again myself, until you decided to chime in. i honestly thought you were playing stupid

That's an interesting take on people who won't agree with you. Must make you all comfy and cozy in your bizarre intellectual world so you don't actually have to argue an issue on its merits. It is pretty forking simple to have this chain of thought: "I believe this ... you believe that .... you're stupid, nanny, nanny boo-boo."

Easy. And intellectually dishonest.

it's intellectually dishonest that i think you are playing stupid because i refuse to believe that you don't understand that a good portion of this country thinks gay marriage is a civil issue? i could give two shirts, tiger. call it what you want.

Again.... is the Chick-Fil-A controversy about blacks?

I come to SJ expecting members here to have common sense and/or critical-thinking skills. I believe you own those skills and are intentionally playing ignorant. I refuse to play along with intentional dummy posts.

It's a legit question that you don't want to answer because, A. you don't have an answer, or B. it blows your argument out of the water.

And one of the quickest ways to get African-Americans mad is to compare their struggle in the 50s and 60s to gay rights. There have never been separate water fountains or restaurant counters or bathrooms or schools for gays.

Absolutely 100 percent agree. But I don't thik our confused friend will. He's still reading something in this news item that makes him think this is about blacks. Maybe he thinks LBJ is still president. If blacks are in it, and LBJ is still president, please, please alert me.

good god, could you people act any more dense? it has nothing to do with black people. it has to do with civil rights. the point i was making was that there wasn't any law on the books before the 1960s, which was spurred on directly by dog's post.

good god, you people play stupid rather well. maybe it isn't an act.

And this guy is just flat insulting and offers nothing, including a pretty solid failure at answering questions. Tom, how many threads have you shut down with your personal crap? Kinda the poster boy for what the moderators say gives them headaches, no?

And once again, you've dodged my question, FWIW.

and you continue to grasp to the ignorant schtick rather well. did i say the CFA issue was a black issue? i suggested that it was a civil rights issue then you focused on black and white.

And the last resort to losing an argument: "I don't care."
You saying I "play stupid" doesn't make it true. I merely consider the source.

good enough then, champ.
this is what it's come down to: you either are playing stupid, or you believe a portion of the nation does not believe it's a civil rights issue.
which is it?

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

so, you were playing stupid.
and you had the sac to call me dishonest. christ.
and the gap isn't as wide as you'd like to think. here's a poll from the only source i'm sure you trust: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/31/poll-65-percent-democrats-support-gay-marriage/

I don't play stupid bro. And even if I was stupid, I could still handle the likes of you.

 

[hondo]

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2008/4/18/126156/What-Should-We-Do-With-The-Word.aspx

For a person to be described as "Christian" in 2008 is to simultaneously be described as everything and nothing at all.

That's who you're arguing with, folks.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this besides that you can use google. Bravo!
Here's the whole thing that you and Stitch apparently think is so relevant to this discussion.

Friday, April 18, 2008
For a person to be described as a "Christian" in 2008 is to be simultaneously described as everything and nothing at all. The term "Christian" may mean this or that but it is in danger of having its meaning nothing, or worse, meaning all the wrong things. The term itself is perfectly clear and profound in its denotation. It is the connotations of the word "Christian" that concern me. The decidedly negative accretions that have metastasized in the very root of the word have unfortunately forced what is true and noble and mysterious out of the word and onto the margin.So what does it mean to be a Christian?

Is it the "Christian" prostituting Christ in their television ministry, stealing money from the poor and the sick that are desperate enough to try to buy a miracle?

Is it the "Christian" who seems uninterested and unable to see Christ in the face of the poor and the hungry and the homeless?

Is it the dear sweet "Christian" old ladies with their mean pinched faces, gossiping about the "sinners" in their midst, unmoved to try to help them?

Is it the "Christian" reveling in his hatred of the "sinner" and hoping for that "sinner" to be an object of God's wrath and not a recipient of God's grace and mercy?

Is it the "Christian" festooned with "Christian" t-shirts and necklaces and WWJD bracelets and "Christian" bumper stickers, indifferent to the manner in which they are trivializing and commodifying Christ with their "Christian" coffee mugs? Got Jesus?

Is it the "Christian" isolating himself from the culture he is called to redeem who will insolate himself from all that "worldliness" and so only engages "Christian" books and music and sports leagues and "Christian" schools?

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?

And what of the "Christian" who can barely fight back his smile as he reads of tsunamis and hurricanes and turmoil in the Middle East in his morning paper, thrilled at these signs that the apocalypse is upon us and it is time to be raptured out of here?

And what of the "Christian" caught in the dreamy swoon of his love affair with the fetus and the stem cell but who is indifferent to the pregnant teenage girl and the diseased patient?

And lastly, what of the "Christian" fighting all the wrong battles, expending energy and efforts trying to put "Christ" back into Christmas but who is unwilling to take up the challenge to put "Christ" back into their Christianity?

I am curious about the future of the word Christian. It seems it can only gain back its former usefulness if we are willing to excavate the layers of anti-intellectualism, American consumerism, the layers of end times hysteria, the thick strata of reactionary cultural isolation and compassionless self interest. Can we peal all of this away and discover again the 1st century Galilean? Can we allow Christ to redeem the word "Christian" as we allow him to redeem us? Otherwise, we might need to jettison the word altogether.

With you on many of your points, which caused my wife and I to leave our church after two pastors we adored were run out of the usual cadre of small-minded idiots who unfortunately usually have all the power in a church. One pastor was sent packing when he was seen having one glass of wine at a restaurant (and the discovery that he had a small wine celler) and the other because he had some serious weight problems and these simps actually said it was to hard to accept anything he preached about because he didn't have the discipline to lose weight.
Both of these guys were outstanding ministers with more compassion than half their congregations.
There are a great many Christian, a majority I hope, who don't fit many of the descriptions above. The only things I disagree about are the references to abortion (look, I'll give up the fight to keep capital punishment if you give it up on abortion on demand.) and Christmas. There are too many people who have problems with a nativity scene in the public square. Not hurt a damn soul.
At the same time, I refuse to get my panties in a wad because the CFA CEO is against gay marriage. As I've stated many times on this thread, if he fires some because they're gay, refuses to hire someone because they're gay or refuses to serve someone because they're gay, get back to me. I'll be carrying the first protest sign at the nearest CFA.