ACLU backs Chick-fil-A

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I think you have a right to do what you want with your money. That doesn't mean I agree with what you do with it. But, I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your money.

Totalitarianism is not a good thing.

but isn't he promoting totalitarianism with his money? also wasn't your original argument about not understanding why people are protesting...aren't people exercising their freedoms by protesting his place?

Good question. I think there's a slight difference here.

I think there's a difference between voicing an opinion on a potential law and potentially donating to fund that point of view... vs. .... someone who's trying to say he shouldn't voice his opinion or donate. He has freedom or speech and he's entitled to do what he wants with his money.

To my knowledge, this man is not saying gay rights side is not also entitled to their opinion or to spend their own money in the way they please. In fact, I'm pretty sure (although not positive) he's fine with them doing what ever they want to do. He just doesn't agree with a law and voiced his opinion.

I do think the gay rights side is exercising their freedom by protesting, I agree with that. But, I original point was not to say I don't understand gay rights protests in general, it was to say - I think this - "as an issue" is silly.... Remember the issue here is one person's opinion. One guy. I said it already, you can't change everyone's opinions or force them to agree with you.

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

No, it's not. But this isn't a black and white world and individually we sometimes compromise our beliefs. Kinda like voting for that guy that believes its ok to kill babies. I did that last time.

Again, the major problem I have with all of this is instead of having an open dialogue about this stuff we always resort to overwhelming support (i.e. Aug 1st) or complete and utter opposition (boycott, etc.)

I say a few people I know in that Chick-fil-a line and they are all very good people, some of the best I know. It's the religion and history that has made them so against Gay Marriage. If we can openly talk about it, I think it starts to whittle away. Hell, when I was in High School I remember not really understanding it and wondering how it could be natural if it couldn't sustain itself (ie can't have kids).

what does you voting for obama have anything to do with this? ... i mean how can you begin to say we should have a frank and open discussion when you just said the president believes its ok to kill babies ... if that isn't antagonistic - what is?

and i'm not really sure where you are going with your 'good people' line ... 50 years ago ... good people didn't allow black people on the bus ... 100 years ago good people had slaves ... this religious intolerance is problematic because it infringes on other peoples human rights ... i'm not sure why that is so hard to get ...

again - if you don't believe gay people should marry ... fine ... i'm ok with that ... but once you start trying to influence gov'ts or anywhere else to take that belief and start oppressing other people - it becomes a problem ...

Jesus, talk about antagonistic. Do you purposely try to slant my posts to annoy you? I'll bullet point it for you.

1) There are a lot of issues to consider when you are deciding who you support. Would you support someone in favor of gay marriage but wants to nuke Iran?

2) As far as my good people comment - I believe them to be reasonable and able to change their minds. I also believe they treat everyone with respect everyday in their personal dealings. They've just been told for so long that Jesus is against it so it's tough for them to go against Jesus. But, being good people, I think with open discussions continuing, they could understand that their position is wrong.

I believe not allowing Blacks on a bus or to drink from the same water fountain or go to the same school is more extreme than the marriage question. Some may disagree.

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, the major problem I have with all of this is instead of having an open dialogue about this stuff we always resort to overwhelming support (i.e. Aug 1st) or complete and utter opposition (boycott, etc.)

I agree with this. How can views and ideas otherwise be legitimately exchanged, heard?

Last night on the news, they covered the hoopla at the CFA in Hollywood. I appreciate folks' passion on both sides of the issue - when openness of mind is involved. Thankfully, there were some there.

But then I had to shake my head at one dude who said that Cathy had no right to voice his views because (the dude believed) they're hateful. Whether Cathy's views are hateful or not is irrelevant to me - he has the right to express them. We have the right to disagree, or agree. Or not give a shit, too.

(I also don't get how PETA got themselves into the mix with signs encouraging people to become vegan, but that's another story)

There is such a thing as an opinion that is not worthy of respect. Just because someone has an opinion, it doesn't mean we always have to be all respectful and open-minded about it. Where did that idea come from, anyway?

I prefer to hear why someone believes as they do, probably moreso when I disagree with their opinion. Respecting the fact that someone has an opinion is in no way tantamount to agreeing with them. That's just me though.

On another note, good for The Abbey! I wonder if Prince of Dorkness has partaken of this yet? They're about five minutes from me.
http://www.wehodaily.com/2012/08/01/the ... age-fight/

hedonist wrote:

I prefer to hear why someone believes as they do, probably moreso when I disagree with their opinion. Respecting the fact that someone has an opinion is in no way tantamount to agreeing with them. That's just me though.

On another note, good for The Abbey! I wonder if Prince of Dorkness has partaken of this yet? They're about five minutes from me.
http://www.wehodaily.com/2012/08/01/the ... age-fight/

That is the gayest sandwich I've ever heard of.

polaris_x wrote:

yet in this day and age ... we are still fighting for the civil rights of gay people ... what does that say!??

Probably been mentioned a quarter-trillion times, but would you be against gays receiving all benefits of a hetero married couple, yet calling it a something different... perhaps, a civil union or something?

Basically, I question - is it really all about "rights"? Or is about a group trying to wedge society (via government) into condoning a way of life that was previously shunned? Because if it was just about rights, the word marriage would be saved (for the people who think that matters) and I think the gay rights crowd would have a lot more support - so they would get all rights desired. Compromise is tough... "this day and age".

Easiest answer, however, is to get government out of marriage all together. I mean if it is a "word" issue, it comes down to what people "believe" that word means... and with "marriage" this mixes faith in with government. The worst part is we have government legislating definitions which are outside of it's scope. This would be no issue if churches and spiritual bodies would be the preeminent "marriage" institutions, not government.

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Probably been mentioned a quarter-trillion times, but would you be against gays receiving all benefits of a hetero married couple, yet calling it a something different... perhaps, a civil union or something?

Basically, I question - is it really all about "rights"? Or is about a group trying to wedge society (via government) into condoning a way of life that was previously shunned? Because if it was just about rights, the word marriage would be saved (for the people who think that matters) and I think the gay rights crowd would have a lot more support - so they would get all rights desired. Compromise is tough... "this day and age".

Easiest answer, however, is to get government out of marriage all together. I mean if it is a "word" issue, it comes down to what people "believe" that word means... and with "marriage" this mixes faith in with government. The worst part is we have government legislating definitions which are outside of it's scope. This would be no issue if churches and spiritual bodies would be the preeminent "marriage" institutions, not government.

honestly - i would say it would be up to the lgbt community to decide that ... i don't believe that marriage is a religious term and even if it was ... it definitely isn't catholic term (there are some christian faiths that support gay marriage) ...

if the lgbt community said - we will accept civil unions and no longer feel like the imposition of these groups to deny me my rights are there ... then i support it and be done with it ... but until then - i think that they have every reason to fight this ...

as for the separation of church and state ... apparently easier said than done ...

The LBGT community has already said that isn't good enough. They want to get MARRIED like everyone else can.They aren't willing to accept it being something else, nor should they be expected to. It is NOT the same, and it would NOT amount to equal rights.

cincybearcat wrote:

Newsflash, I wrote it I know what I meant by it. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Jeez, even on a topic where we can agree we can't fucking understand each other!

all you need to do is admit that saying "obama thinks its ok to kill babies" is in fact antagonistic and we can move on ... instead - you'd rather play the semantics card ...

cincybearcat wrote:

Kinda like voting for that guy that believes its ok to kill babies. I did that last time.

ok ... who are you referring to then?