• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Chick Fill Aye on same sex marry age

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
excellent post, through and through, werepossum

:thumbsup:
Thanks. Although I can understand both sides' arguments, legalization of gay marriage is one of the issues that seems the most one-sided to me, an issue with moral force and practically no down side. Very few issues do I see that way, so it's continually surprising to me to find that 45% - 60% of the nation disagrees.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Sigh..

Wake me up when they refuse service to the gay community otherwise this is just a bunch of bs. This whole gay or nay thing makes me proud to be a libertarian, the government should not have a damn thing to do with marriage it should be up to their church and whatever god they pray too. If the gay community started a church then good for them, but the President of a company voicing his opinions is not news.

What is news is that some local mayors are trying to force them out of their cities or from opening business within the communities.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,517
126
"the government should not have a damn thing to do with marriage"

Exactly. Yet gay people cannot get married.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Didn't realize that my choice of a Char Grilled Chicken Salad for lunch would provoke such an analogy. It wasn't meant as a moral statement. It was meant to be lunch.

Also didn't realize it would provoke such hate. For example:

"ABC's The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren't in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ"

While I personally wouldn't go to an establishment just because the PC True Believers are boycotting it, I wouldn't stop going either.

But I want the haters to know that I wish you luck with your boycott. As I stated before, the lines are always to long when I stop to get my salad anyway,

Best of luck,
Uno
Like classy, you're implying that a company's stated or unstated politics is irrelevant to your decision as to whether to patronize the company's business. Well, I didn't believe classy and I don't believe you.

I'm sure there are hot-button issues you hold dear. Yet you're telling us that if a company was a vociferous advocate of a position entirely opposite to yours on that issue, it wouldn't affect your patronage?

Stop lying.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
I sure am going to miss those delicious Chargrilled Chicken Sandwiches with that tasty honey mustard BBQ sauce. :(

Oh well, don't rub your archaic beliefs in my face if you want my money.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
I have yet to hear a logical and reasonable answer to the following question:

What negative affect does gay marriage have on your marriage or the marriage of anyone else you know?
Gay marriage won't affect my marriage. I can't speak for others'.

Neither will polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, or group marriages.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Like classy, you're implying that a company's stated or unstated politics is irrelevant to your decision as to whether to patronize the company's business. Well, I didn't believe classy and I don't believe you.

I'm sure there are hot-button issues you hold dear. Yet you're telling us that if a company was a vociferous advocate of a position entirely opposite to yours on that issue, it wouldn't affect your patronage?

Stop lying.
I don't think you're being fair to Classy or Unokitty. A statement of generality that a company's stated or unstated politics is irrelevant to each's decision as to whether to patronize the company's business does not necessarily preclude something so politically heinous as to force that decision. They are just making that statement in general with the unspoken but clear assertion that this particular instance does not (for them) rise to the standard of violating that principle. I daresay that if Chick-Fil-A announced that black folks were a blight on society and they were going to be donating to the Klan to remedy this problem, or for that matter that gays were a blight on society and they were going to be donating to organizations lobbying to make homosexuality illegal, neither Classy nor Unokitty would patronize Chick-Fil-A. However, just as my statement that I wouldn't leave my house naked would not prevent me from running out starkers if I suddenly found a grizzly bear in my closet, their statements were reasonable within normal variances. Just as I would drop my Progressive policy if the company began working for the abolition of capitalism, but not because they donate to organizations lobbying for higher taxes or universal government health care. One doesn't have to agree with every position a company (or individual) takes, and perhaps like me they even admire Chick-Fil-A for doing what they consider to be morally right (with the knowledge that they will take a financial hit for doing so) even as we disagree with the individual stance.

One has to pick one's battles, and adopting a policy of zero tolerance for disagreement guarantees an unhappy life.

I would suggest one thing. I don't know what is Chick-Fil-A's corporate profit, so I'm going to assume 10%. If you like Chick-Fil-A as a company and a family of products, but you disagree with their stance on gay marriage, why not donate money equal to their corporate profit to an organization supporting gay marriage? There must be some with funds set up for litigation or lobbying or adverts. That way you can support a company you generally like while negating their influence on this specific view. If on the other hand you consider organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Focus on the Family to be "vile and discriminatory organizations", then you have no business patronizing Chick-Fil-A, ever.

As an aside, I think organizations like Focus on the Family are harming their nominal cause by lobbying against gay marriage. Resources are always inherently limited, and by devoting such resources to constraining others' freedom, they are not doing all they could be doing to promote Christian values that are undeniably more important. Bringing one couple to Christ, or helping one couple cope with difficult financial or marital problems, does much more for Christianity in my opinion than banning every gay marriage in the world. And given that some gays wishing to marry are undoubtedly Christians, lobbying against gay marriage is arguably harming Christianity by driving away faithful adherents. (That's certainly arguable - Caesar's law is not necessarily G-d's law, and official government sanction is not necessarily G-d's sanction - but certainly I'd have a difficult time remaining within a religion that found such a core part of my being as sexual orientation to be a sin.)

I take issue with the idea that something being legal is "forcing" a viewpoint on anyone. Let's take smoking. I don't smoke. It doesn't make a difference to me personally whether smoking is illegal or not. But it happens to be legal; is that "forcing" smoking on me? Nope. If I don't want to engage in that activity, I'm not required to. There's lots of things that are legal which I don't do. You can open up a vegan restaurant if you've got the right permits. Personally, I find veganism offensive. But the fact that veganism is legal isn't "forcing" it on me. I can choose not to engage in it.

Interracial marriage is another activity that is legal. If I were a racist, that's not something I'd be in to, and since I'm already engaged to a white woman, I'm guessing I probably won't get an interracial marriage in my lifetime. Just because the option exists, doesn't mean that someone is "forcing" their beliefs on me. It's the exact same situation with gay marriage. If it was legal, am I going to be required to marry a man? No? Well then where does the "force" part come in to play?

Having the right to do something doesn't make something mandatory. No one is forcing you to think anything. They're opening up further rights to a group you don't happen to be a member of. It doesn't affect you.
Sorry, I missed your post earlier. That situation with the smoking was exactly my point - some on the left are incensed that "their" society allows smoking. (Well, except for pot.) Government has to have a position one way or the other on smoking, as having no policy is a win for the smoking side. Therefore one side is going to have the other side's views forced on it, as framed in their society, whether or not they personally smoke. They won't be personally affected unless they want to smoke and it is prohibited, but either way their society will not reflect their own values. This is why some fight so hard to get smoking banned, so that their society reflects their own values. It's the same with gay marriage - some want it prohibited, or more accurately, kept prohibited. So one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. One side will find their society does not reflect their own values. I also likened this to interracial marriage; while I believe that the majority can and must craft a society that reflects their values, that should not extend to the point of discrimination, of constraining others from enjoying the same basic liberties because of slightly different choices. Society should extend the same level of freedom to every individual as long as they aren't materially harming others.

Now personally, for me this is a no-brainer as I've said before. Gay people who wish to be married are affected directly and drastically by the prohibition of gay marriage. People who are not gays wishing to marry are affected only marginally; no one who is at all rational hates the concept of gay marriage so much that it will materially affect his or her life. I can literally choose whether or not I let gay marriage bother me, just as I can choose whether I'm offended by fat people or smokers or potheads. As I posted earlier, I see no compelling societal need to ban gay marriage. I can on the other hand see great moral reasons to allow gay marriage - personal liberty, equal protection under the law, equal opportunity to pursue happiness - nor do I see any significant societal down side in allowing it. But even though I think this issue is a no-brainer, I can understand the opposing point of view. Tradition and culture are fine things to appreciate, even if personally I don't think they rank nearly as high in importance as personal liberty or equal protection.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
Like classy, you're implying that a company's stated or unstated politics is irrelevant to your decision as to whether to patronize the company's business. Well, I didn't believe classy and I don't believe you.

I'm sure there are hot-button issues you hold dear. Yet you're telling us that if a company was a vociferous advocate of a position entirely opposite to yours on that issue, it wouldn't affect your patronage?

Stop lying.
People that are intolerant of Christians or intolerant of gay marriage have much more in common with each other than they do with me.

My experience has been that intolerant people are pretty much interchangeable. That is, each of these groups seems to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differ.

If you want to hate, or insult, or be otherwise intolerant of me or my views, that's your prerogative.

But if you expect your intolerance to be a problem for me, you're likely to be disappointed.

Uno
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,141
21,122
136
People that are intolerant of Christians or intolerant of gay marriage have much more in common with each other than they do with me.

My experience has been that intolerant people are pretty much interchangeable. That is, each of these groups seems to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differ.

If you want to hate, or insult, or be otherwise intolerant of me or my views, that's your prerogative.

But if you expect your intolerance to be a problem for me, you're likely to be disappointed.

Uno

so...at what point is someone allowed to be intolerant of the intolerant individuals that populate this world?

:hmm:
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,009
1,861
136
2 items:

1) When did this become a free speech issue? I don't see anywhere that Mountain View, Boston, or Chicago said that Chick-fil-A wasn't entitled to its' speech, they just said that the exercise of free speech had repercussions.
2) Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. The commentary of South Park's "Museum of Tolerance" episode seems appropriate here.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
You and I are in pretty much total agreement. It's a strange issue for people to take such a hardline stance on.
Agreed. There are so damned few issues where losing has such negligible consequences that I'm hard pressed to understand why people so strongly resist legalizing gay marriage. But as a society we're far too inclined to use the armed might of government to force our preferences on others, whether or not we're personally affected.

EDIT: Have to admit I'm unhappy with the right (and much of the middle) here. We're supposed to love liberty and want limited government, yet we're willing to constrain someone else' liberty because we dislike the choices they make. (Or alternately, because we dislike the way G-d made them.) And no government can ever be considered limited if it holds the power to decide whom you may and may not marry.

C'mon, guys, we can do better. We MUST do better. We simply cannot stand for liberty and individual freedom while also standing for constraining others' behavior for our own personal preferences.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,141
21,122
136
Agreed. There are so damned few issues where losing has such negligible consequences that I'm hard pressed to understand why people so strongly resist legalizing gay marriage. But as a society we're far too inclined to use the armed might of government to force our preferences on others, whether or not we're personally affected.

EDIT: Have to admit I'm unhappy with the right (and much of the middle) here. We're supposed to love liberty and want limited government, yet we're willing to constrain someone else' liberty because we dislike the choices they make. (Or alternately, because we dislike the way G-d made them.) And no government can ever be considered limited if it holds the power to decide whom you may and may not marry.

C'mon, guys, we can do better. We MUST do better. We simply cannot stand for liberty and individual freedom while also standing for constraining others' behavior for our own personal preferences.
I think it simply boils down to fear and hate.

As for the bolded, I've always thought that this was the killer argument for the fundamentalists, but one has to realize that such realities do not reflect a world in which homosexuality was "made by god."

To them, it is clearly a choice to be "unnatural," to "live in sin."

despite copious examples of the most virulent gay-hating spokesmen being revealed to be nothing more than self-loathing closeted gay individuals, this understanding of homosexuality will persist until the older generation dies off.

(By the way: Bryan Fischer is the next virulent homophobe to be caught with his pants down in the vicinity of a cabana boy. Mark it.) :D
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
What I think is funny is that Chik Fil A does not have a sign on their door that says "NO GAYS ALLOWED" but the mayor of Chicago (and probably most democrats in general) want to use the power of government to shut down/ban all Chik Fil As.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,113
24,666
136
What I think is funny is that Chik Fil A does not have a sign on their door that says "NO GAYS ALLOWED" but the mayor of Chicago (and probably most democrats in general) want to use the power of government to shut down/ban all Chik Fil As.
Can you provide a link to Chicago and Boston attempts to shut down these restaurants?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,283
11,734
136
What I think is funny is that Chik Fil A does not have a sign on their door that says "NO GAYS ALLOWED" but the mayor of Chicago (and probably most democrats in general) want to use the power of government to shut down/ban all Chik Fil As.
There is already one in Chicago (downtown) and nobody is suggesting shutting it down. The case here is that CFA requires a zoning change to be supported by the alderman in front of the city council to establish a new store on a different site that isn't zoned for it already.

If I was the alderman I would have simply rejected their proposal on fuzzy but legitimate grounds (say...traffic concerns for the zoned parcel and intended use) and let them informally know the real reason. That's the way things are usually done here.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
You and I are in pretty much total agreement. It's a strange issue for people to take such a hardline stance on.
People are sick of the church persecuting the masses.

And church supporters are lead to believe that the masses no longer care for the church and, in fact, are plotting to rid the world of them because that way the church leaders can beg for more money from the remaining people to even out their loss in profits from the masses choosing to be sick of the church's bullshit.

*obviously this is an oversimplified generalization but it really hits the mark in a simple but honest way.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Gay marriage won't affect my marriage. I can't speak for others'.

Neither will polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, or group marriages.
Exactly. It won't affect your marriage at all. Gay marriage affects only those gay people who choose to get married. Nothing changes about anyone else's past, present, or future marriages. The wheels fall off of the "harm to the institution of marriage" argument for that exact reason.

If someone views their marriage as meaning less because the government permits gay couples to be regarded as married in the eyes of government and law they are placing a value in government recognition of their relationship that they criticize gay people for seeking. It is 100% hypocritical.
 
Last edited:

SlitheryDee

Lifer
Feb 2, 2005
17,252
18
81
So we're getting ever closer to it being a crime to express your thoughts.

We're where we always were in this case, with people getting pissed off by shit other people say. The idea that something pissing someone off must eventually lead to that something being outlawed is the one we most need to do away with. It is, in a way, the very thing this thread is about. I keep getting reminded of the sagging pants ordinances towns are constantly trying to enact around here. People get pissy about stuff that it never even occurs to me to think about apparently.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Can you provide a link to Chicago and Boston attempts to shut down these restaurants?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/13988905-418/emanuel-goes-after-chick-fil-a-for-boss-anti-gay-views.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/boston-mayor-rejects-anti-gay-chick-fil-a

And just for contrast:
http://matzav.com/chicago-mayor-emanuel-welcomes-anti-semite-farrakhan’s-support-in-crime-fight

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374752/Boston-mayor-Tom-Menino-bans-sale-sugary-drinks-public-buildings.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

In Chicago, believing that Jews are animals and whites are demons created to bedevil the superior black race is no biggie compared with opposition to gay marriage - the very same position Obama held before he evolved.

In Boston, government believes you have the right to gay marriage but not to a Coca-Cola.

I HATE when the I'm on the same side as the nuts. :D
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Emanuel was just expressing his opinion. It's not like he's banning chick fil a from opening up any more stores.
Um - okay. From the article:
Ald. Joe Moreno (1st) is using the same argument to block Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood.
If you want to believe that Emanuel is just expressing his opinion and Moreno's actions are coincidence, well, it's a free country. (Except for Chicago, I mean.)

Perhaps this will help Emanuel in his quest to market Chicago for world tourism. The old motto of "Chicago - come for the murders, stay for the gang rape" evidently isn't working so well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY