ACLU backs Chick-fil-A

cincybearcat · August 2012

polaris_x wrote:

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?

Again, you are completely missing the point. I've done it more than 1 time for more than 1 person. Really, we are getting no where.

cincybearcat · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

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.

This.

Government should only have civil unions for ALL. Let the churches do what they want and call it what they want, but don't recognize it unless it is a Civil Union license.

Or.... just keep calling it marriage and let any 2 consenting adults (18+) enter into it if they wish. Why anyone would waste their $ fighting against it is beyond me.

inlet13 · August 2012

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 ...

That doesn't make sense. You think this community doesn't have "civil rights", but you can't decide how exactly to get them those "rights"? You have to go to them and ask them "if we get you every right that married heterosexual couples have, but leave out the word marriage, is that enough to satisfy your rights"? Seriously? You can't know at the outset? I think you do know, you just don't want to say it.

So, I'll say it. You know, in the end, it's about the word. Because they can get those equal rights if they forfeited the word. But, why does this word even matter? Under the example I provided of a civil union (with equal legal rights to a married couple) you get them all the rights under the law except they drop the word as a concession... why does the word matter "to them"? We know why it matters to the Christians who are upset about it - it's religious to them, it's part of their faith. That definition is part of their religion and it's definition has fit for 1000s of years. So, why does it matter to the gay and lesbian community to get included? They've never had it in the past. Why do they need that word now?

It's ridiculous. This is not a battle to get equal "rights".... It's an attempt to force an entire society to condone a type of relationship. That's what I don't get. If it was about money or law, I get that. But, forcing viewpoints on right and wrong? That will never happen. Sects of people trying to force government to control it's people's beliefs on right and wrong. Government can't control people's beliefs no matter how hard they try. Totalitarianism... never really works.

I don't know why I even posted in here. This issue is so retarded. Give them the legal and monetary rights, concede the word marriage. Then the problems over. Everyone's happy.

Or, better yet, just get government out of marriage for heterosexuals. Then, bing, bang, boom... problem solved. Government should never be involved in these types of institutions. There's no point.

polaris_x · August 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

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?

Again, you are completely missing the point. I've done it more than 1 time for more than 1 person. Really, we are getting no where.

cincybearcat · August 2012

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

ok ... who are you referring to then?

Again, you are completely missing the point. I've done it more than 1 time for more than 1 person. Really, we are getting no where.

comebackgirl · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

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 ...

That doesn't make sense. You think this community doesn't have "civil rights", but you can't decide how exactly to get them those "rights"? You have to go to them and ask them "if we get you every right that married heterosexual couples have, but leave out the word marriage, is that enough to satisfy your rights"? Seriously? You can't know at the outset? I think you do know, you just don't want to say it.

So, I'll say it. You know, in the end, it's about the word. Because they can get those equal rights if they forfeited the word. But, why does this word even matter? Under the example I provided of a civil union (with equal legal rights to a married couple) you get them all the rights under the law except they drop the word as a concession... why does the word matter "to them"? We know why it matters to the Christians who are upset about it - it's religious to them, it's part of their faith. That definition is part of their religion and it's definition has fit for 1000s of years. So, why does it matter to the gay and lesbian community to get included? They've never had it in the past. Why do they need that word now?

It's ridiculous. This is not a battle to get equal "rights".... It's an attempt to force an entire society to condone a type of relationship. That's what I don't get. If it was about money or law, I get that. But, forcing viewpoints on right and wrong? That will never happen. Sects of people trying to force government to control it's people's beliefs on right and wrong. Government can't control people's beliefs no matter how hard they try. Totalitarianism... never really works.

I don't know why I even posted in here. This issue is so retarded. Give them the legal and monetary rights, concede the word marriage. Then the problems over. Everyone's happy.

Or, better yet, just get government out of marriage for heterosexuals. Then, bing, bang, boom... problem solved. Government should never be involved in these types of institutions. There's no point.

Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.

polaris_x · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

That doesn't make sense. You think this community doesn't have "civil rights", but you can't decide how exactly to get them those "rights"? You have to go to them and ask them "if we get you every right that married heterosexual couples have, but leave out the word marriage, is that enough to satisfy your rights"? Seriously? You can't know at the outset? I think you do know, you just don't want to say it.

So, I'll say it. You know, in the end, it's about the word. Because they can get those equal rights if they forfeited the word. But, why does this word even matter? Under the example I provided of a civil union (with equal legal rights to a married couple) you get them all the rights under the law except they drop the word as a concession... why does the word matter "to them"? We know why it matters to the Christians who are upset about it - it's religious to them, it's part of their faith. That definition is part of their religion and it's definition has fit for 1000s of years. So, why does it matter to the gay and lesbian community to get included? They've never had it in the past. Why do they need that word now?

It's ridiculous. This is not a battle to get equal "rights".... It's an attempt to force an entire society to condone a type of relationship. That's what I don't get. If it was about money or law, I get that. But, forcing viewpoints on right and wrong? That will never happen. Sects of people trying to force government to control it's people's beliefs on right and wrong. Government can't control people's beliefs no matter how hard they try. Totalitarianism... never really works.

I don't know why I even posted in here. This issue is so retarded. Give them the legal and monetary rights, concede the word marriage. Then the problems over. Everyone's happy.

Or, better yet, just get government out of marriage for heterosexuals. Then, bing, bang, boom... problem solved. Government should never be involved in these types of institutions. There's no point.

what are you talking about!? ... i said it's up to the lgbt community to decide ... how is that not deciding!? ... sure, it's about a word ... i have no problem agreeing to that summation ...

i do think you are mistaken to think that this is simply a battle over a word because in most places - civil unions aren't even allowed ... your so called concession that would make everyone happy isn't allowed in most states ...

you do understand what it means to be a "progressive" right? ... gay people were persecuted and outcast from society for so long ... only through social changes is it perceived to be ok to be gay but yet "in this day and age" we still have gay people being ostracized whether its bullying or in their attempts to get "married" ...

inlet13 · August 2012

comebackgirl wrote:

Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.

Draw the comparison. It's a word. They are free to do every single thing anyone else does. And they can do here, there or wherever they want.

The alignment of this topic with segregation is just plain ignorant.

Jason P · August 2012

Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage whatsoever?

comebackgirl · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.

Draw the comparison. It's a word. They are free to do every single thing anyone else does. And they can do here, there or wherever they want.

The alignment of this topic with segregation is just plain ignorant.

How so?

polaris_x · August 2012

Jason P wrote:

Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage whatsoever?

what the!? ... clearly you haven't been reading inlet's posts ...

Jason P · August 2012

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage whatsoever?

what the!? ... clearly you haven't been reading inlet's posts ...

ok, you got me.

ahem ...

Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage or civil unions whatsoever?

inlet13 · August 2012

polaris_x wrote:

what are you talking about!? ... i said it's up to the lgbt community to decide ... how is that not deciding!? ... sure, it's about a word ... i have no problem agreeing to that summation ...

Uh oh... here comes the dreaded "!?" and the more "!?"... watch out everyone.

What I'm talking about is exactly what I said. You can't simply say "_____ is what they need to get equal rights". You place in a caveat... "it's up to them to decide". I say - that's really, really weak.

polaris_x wrote:

i do think you are mistaken to think that this is simply a battle over a word because in most places - civil unions aren't even allowed ... your so called concession that would make everyone happy isn't allowed in most states ...

I think it would be if they conceded the fight for the word. Anyway, it was a hypothetical.

polaris_x wrote:

you do understand what it means to be a "progressive" right? ... gay people were persecuted and outcast from society for so long ... only through social changes is it perceived to be ok to be gay but yet "in this day and age" we still have gay people being ostracized whether its bullying or in their attempts to get "married" ...

Billions of people, groups and otherwise have been persecuted and outcast over the history of time. That has nothing to do with now and this dumb Chick-fil-A stuff. Today. If people attack physically or verbally a person of this persuasion they are either in jail or ostracized, and rightly so. This is not even an issue of tolerance. You know that. People tolerate just fine. It's an issue of a word. More deeply, it's an issue of condoning a relationship via government stamp of approval. There's a big difference between tolerance and condoning.

You can't make someone "condone" lifestyle choices. No matter how much you want to.

People have different viewpoints, and you can't can't AND SHOULDN'T try to change that. That's actually called "tolerance". Kinda comes full circle, and reiterates why this discussion is so stupid.

inlet13 · August 2012

comebackgirl wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.

Draw the comparison. It's a word. They are free to do every single thing anyone else does. And they can do here, there or wherever they want.

The alignment of this topic with segregation is just plain ignorant.

How so?

You first.

inlet13 · August 2012

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage whatsoever?

what the!? ... clearly you haven't been reading inlet's posts ...

ok, you got me.

ahem ...

Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage or civil unions whatsoever?

Personally, I don't want government involved in marriage or civil unions. I was simply commenting on civil unions being a method to solve this dumb dispute.

comebackgirl · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

You first.

ok

If we're providing the same rights (equal) with a different name (separate) it seems to continue to add to the division. By not allowing people access to the same things with the same names (words) it continues to add to the notion that they are "different" or "less than."

Cosmo · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

Personally, I don't want government involved in marriage or civil unions. I was simply commenting on civil unions being a method to solve this dumb dispute.

...
I agree with that...
Or how about stripping the government/legal 'rights' of married couples?
Either way... make it equal for everyone... married, single, divorced.

polaris_x · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

Uh oh... here comes the dreaded "!?" and the more "!?"... watch out everyone.

apparently, this is a problem for you!? ...

inlet13 wrote:

What I'm talking about is exactly what I said. You can't simply say "_____ is what they need to get equal rights". You place in a caveat... "it's up to them to decide". I say - that's really, really weak.

you can call it weak ... i could care less ... clearly they are the ones most affected by the religious intolerance - i don't see a problem with letting them decide what is in their interests ...

inlet13 wrote:

I think it would be if they conceded the fight for the word. Anyway, it was a hypothetical.

i would say you'd be wrong ... there are plenty of people who don't want gay people to have those rights under any term whether it be civil unions or domestic partnerships ...

inlet13 wrote:

Billions of people, groups and otherwise have been persecuted and outcast over the history of time. That has nothing to do with now and this dumb Chick-fil-A stuff. Today. If people attack physically or verbally a person of this persuasion they are either in jail or ostracized, and rightly so. This is not even an issue of tolerance. You know that. People tolerate just fine. It's an issue of a word. More deeply, it's an issue of condoning a relationship via government stamp of approval. There's a big difference between tolerance and condoning.

You can't make someone "condone" lifestyle choices. No matter how much you want to.

People have different viewpoints, and you can't can't AND SHOULDN'T try to change that. That's actually called "tolerance". Kinda comes full circle, and reiterates why this discussion is so stupid.

i was simply responding to you saying that gays didn't care a thousand years ago about marriage - why should they care now ...

inlet13 · August 2012

comebackgirl wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

You first.

ok

If we're providing the same rights (equal) with a different name (separate) it seems to continue to add to the division. By not allowing people access to the same things with the same names (words) it continues to add to the notion that they are "different" or "less than."

Couple responses:

Under this scenario...

They get the same rights, with different names - true. I don't see how that divides because...

1) They get the same rights, which is what they were "after".

2) ...intrinsically, they are "different" (not less than or greater than)... just different. Two men declaring their relationship forever is "different" than one man and one women doing the same, as is two couples declaring their love to all of the above forever. No matter how much some want to wish the"facts" away; it's a horrible, horrible truth... they are all different. So, one way to settle this, is to acknowledge that and move on.

Bottom line though - it's not equatable to separate, but equal. They aren't denied any rights under this scenario. They can do what they want, where they want, when they want. Just like a hetero married couple. In fact, if they want to say to their friends/family they are "married"... go ahead. But, under they law, they'll be united. Big difference? No. They aren't segregated whatsoever. Simply put, a different name is placed on the relationship, because like I said earlier, the horrible, horrible truth is... it is in fact, different.

Anyway, this is my attempt to solve this issue. Like I've said before, the government should just revoke all marriages. Leave it to the private/religious/spiritual sphere to take care of "granting" this label.

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

I havent really been following this much, but I was under the impression that if I knew all the inner workings of the assholes that run the companies I purchase products from, I'd be naked and fucking hungry.

I still think supporting the causes that Chick-fil-a does is pretty bad, but I dont go there anyway.

Here's an article I stumbled on (truth to this?):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bad ... ref=topbar

"Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:

"1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?

2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?

3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?

4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?

5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?

There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?"

ACLU backs Chick-fil-A

Comments

Categories