Chick Fill Aye on same sex marry age

[Charles Kozierok]

I suspected that. So I'll make it simpler and say that the definition of marriage five or six hundred years before Christ is not a static definition. Marriage as a concept evolved from one man with as many women as he could take or buy, into one man and one woman.

That's an accurate assessment of marriage within Judaism. What you said before was not.

Come to think of it, that's the logical next step for the left. "What! Marriage has never ever been defined as the union of one man and one woman! How dare you try to change marriage!"

This is a straw man so transparent that it would cause eye rolling in a high school level debate.

I've never encountered anyone on the left deal with this issue based on historical "definitions" of marriage. Their position is generally that marriage has evolved over time, and that it is whatever society considers to be acceptable.

And they're correct.

After all, even ignoring the polygamy issue, we are not that far removed from marriage between 30-year-old men and 13-year-old girls being routine. And from marriages between blacks and whites being not just frowned upon but illegal.

After all, there are still today some men living with multiple wives, so clearly (by proggie standards anyway) marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean.

Try addressing the examples above.

(We'll ignore for the moment that Jewish polygamy doesn't actually get you any closer to same sex marriage as it still required one man and one woman for EACH marriage; a man could not marry a man, nor a woman marry a woman.)

Good thing I never said it did get me "closer" to same sex marriage. I objected to your comments only because they were historically bogus. The larger point about polygamy goes to the issue of marriage evolving over time, as opposed to the pervasive right-wing lie that it's been "one man and one woman bound for all eternity" for 3,000 years.

The difference seems to be that I'm honest enough to admit that opening up marriage to gays IS a change.

Good. Now try being honest enough to admit that the definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history, and that gay marriage is just one more step in that natural evolution.

 

[Incorruptible]

Good for them, they stand by there values and principles. The leftists are showing there intolerance by attacking them because they have different values

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Some will pretend that gay marriage is ok biblically and it simply is not.

Some of us recognize that in a secular nation what's "ok biblically" should not be the basis for our laws.

The leftists are showing there intolerance by attacking them because they have different values

Freedom of speech goes both ways. They're allowed to say something we disagree with and we're allowed to disagree with them. That disagreement might include not patronizing their business. That's about as American as you can get. Why do you hate freedom?

 

[pcgeek11]

Some of us have personal standards to uphold. I can't actively give money to an organization that funds 'pray the gay away' camps for kids and is actively working against allowing my personal freedom as an American citizen. You say you love and respect gay people, yet you're directly contributing to a cause that is working against them. Sounds like love to me.

It works both ways. In this thread you are imposing your beliefs on all of us. This is your right just as it is theirs. That would make you a Hypocrite.

As far as I know they haven't refused to serve gays. They have a right to their opinion just as you are. Get off the soapbox.

 

[K1052]

One of our alderman just killed their next Chicago store over this. I can see this being a problem in just about any major urban market they might want to enter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725,0,929023.story

There is no way the city council will override the alderman (if the local alderman dosen't approve of a development it does not happen) let alone when Rahm has come out and said they aren't welcome.

 

[child of wonder]

Good for them, they stand by there values and principles. The leftists are showing there intolerance by attacking them because they have different values

What if they instead made an official statement revealing them as Holocaust deniers? Or white supremacists?

Would it then be OK not to eat there without being called "intolerant?"

In any case, they've made their stance on a hot button issue clear and now get to enjoy the public backlash. That's not "intolerance" on our part, it's capitalism at work.

 

[werepossum]

That's an accurate assessment of marriage within Judaism. What you said before was not.



This is a straw man so transparent that it would cause eye rolling in a high school level debate.

I've never encountered anyone on the left deal with this issue based on historical "definitions" of marriage. Their position is generally that marriage has evolved over time, and that it is whatever society considers to be acceptable.

And they're correct.

After all, even ignoring the polygamy issue, we are not that far removed from marriage between 30-year-old men and 13-year-old girls being routine. And from marriages between blacks and whites being not just frowned upon but illegal.



Try addressing the examples above.



Good thing I never said it did get me "closer" to same sex marriage. I objected to your comments only because they were historically bogus. The larger point about polygamy goes to the issue of marriage evolving over time, as opposed to the pervasive right-wing lie that it's been "one man and one woman bound for all eternity" for 3,000 years.



Good. Now try being honest enough to admit that the definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history, and that gay marriage is just one more step in that natural evolution.

But that's been my position all along. Marriage for perhaps 2,500 years has been ONE man and ONE woman, no matter that there have been (and continue to be) exceptions to that. There are STILL exceptions to that rule. There will ALWAYS be exceptions to that rule; almost nothing in this world is absolute. Those exceptions have been getting fewer as the prevailing definition tightens, but in the extreme late twentieth century the tightening (clamping down on fringe polygamous elements, raising the lower age considered acceptable) have been matched by an expansion as more liberal Western societies expand to include same-sex marriage.

For the umpteenth time, I support the evolution of marriage to include same sex marriage. I just don't support pretending that marriage has not been defined as the union of one man and one woman for a long, long time.

 

[Ryan]

It works both ways. In this thread you are imposing your beliefs on all of us. This is your right just as it is theirs. That would make you a Hypocrite.

As far as I know they haven't refused to serve gays. They have a right to their opinion just as you are. Get off the soapbox.

You are a prime example of the outright dishonestly waged by the anti-gay marriage pundits.

You do not understand that by making gay marriage illegal, you are actively preventing citizens from living their lives freely. You are denying them liberty and using religion as a basis for law.

On the other had, if we legalize gay marriage, your life doesn't change at all. You can still chose to believe that gay marriage is an abomination, and your right to marry whoever you want is unchanged.

Nobody cares that you are a bigot - you are free to believe whatever you want. You cross the line when you funnel money to organizations who seek to use their influence and clout to limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[brandonb]

Freedom of speech goes both ways. They're allowed to say something we disagree with and we're allowed to disagree with them. That disagreement might include not patronizing their business. That's about as American as you can get. Why do you hate freedom?

Agreed. However, I think the point was that the left advertises itself as the "tolerant", and "open minded" side of the spectrum so this basically means they are hypocrites.

 

[Incorruptible]

What if they instead made an official statement revealing them as Holocaust deniers? Or white supremacists?

Would it then be OK not to eat there without being called "intolerant?"

In any case, they've made their stance on a hot button issue clear and now get to enjoy the public backlash. That's not "intolerance" on our part, it's capitalism at work.

I wouldn't want to eat there if they did that.

The point is these idiots on the left claim to be tolerant but they only tolerate people with the same ideas and anyone who disagrees with them is viciously attacked

 

[zinfamous]

It works both ways. In this thread you are imposing your beliefs on all of us. This is your right just as it is theirs. That would make you a Hypocrite.

As far as I know they haven't refused to serve gays. They have a right to their opinion just as you are. Get off the soapbox.

that would mean that platypus demands that everyone get a gay marriage.

that is not what platypus is saying.

defending the civil rights of all is not the same as imposing one's belief on others.

if your church is afraid of the gay and doesn't want to marry gays, no one gives an ever-loving fuck about it.

But to create a law that roundly rejects civil liberties protected by the constitution, is a theocratic, anti-american slight that fewer and fewer people are tolerating.

the reason we are not a democracy is because the "majority" opinion is never useful for protecting the rights of the minorty.

thankfully, the majority opinion has swayed towards most being fine with gay marriage.

this is why you are wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

Good for them, they stand by there values and principles. The leftists are showing there intolerance by attacking them because they have different values

what if Chik Fil-A was an Islamic franchise that supported Sharia law?

 

[zinfamous]

Agreed. However, I think the point was that the left advertises itself as the "tolerant", and "open minded" side of the spectrum so this basically means they are hypocrites.

being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance.


wtf is wrong with people?

 

[zinfamous]

I wouldn't want to eat there if they did that.

The point is these idiots on the left claim to be tolerant but they only tolerate people with the same ideas and anyone who disagrees with them is viciously attacked

what does your white supremacist boards have to say about this issue? I'm curious what links you have to provide for us.

 

[Matt1970]

This has been a bad decision on Chick-fil-A's part from the start. I highly doubt you will gain many customers by being anti-gay marriage, but you sure as hell will lose them.

 

[child of wonder]

I wouldn't want to eat there if they did that.

The point is these idiots on the left claim to be tolerant but they only tolerate people with the same ideas and anyone who disagrees with them is viciously attacked

So if someone holds a belief that is intolerant and those in opposition call them out for it, the opposition is, itself, intolerant?

Huh?

 

[zinfamous]

This has been a bad decision on Chick-fil-A's part from the start. I highly doubt you will gain many customers by being anti-gay marriage, but you sure as hell will lose them.

yep. It's just flat-out dumb business. you'll get the inland redneck support for about ~half a generation, but your long-term prospects are grim.

To follow the trend of younger people as they grow into adulthood and further, they would have no choice but to re-nig on such policies if they want to continue to sell their chicken sandwiches.

 

[Incorruptible]

what does your white supremacist boards have to say about this issue? I'm curious what links you have to provide for us.

I am not a white supremacist, I think for myself and aren't I suppose to be Jewish?

 

[werepossum]

You are a prime example of the outright dishonestly waged by the anti-gay marriage pundits.

You do not understand that by making gay marriage illegal, you are actively preventing citizens from living their lives freely. You are denying them liberty and using religion as a basis for law.

On the other had, if we legalize gay marriage, your life doesn't change at all. You can still chose to believe that gay marriage is an abomination, and your right to marry whoever you want is unchanged.

Nobody cares that you are a bigot - you are free to believe whatever you want. You cross the line when you funnel money to organizations who seek to use their influence and clout to limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

But he has a point in that SOMEONE is going to have a society with rules that do not match their preferences. SOMEONE is going to have others' preferences forced on them.

For me, that's a no brainer - much as I love this country's traditions and greatness, individual liberty and equal protection under the law trump. Sometimes the minority has to get its wishes against the majority's wishes - that's why we have a Republic based on law rather than a pure Democracy of mob rule. But I can recognize that others may have legitimate opinions which are diametrically opposed. And again, we're talking about organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Focus on the Family. If you really feel that these are "vile and discriminatory organizations" as Eskimospy says, then by all means don't patronize Chick-Fil-A. Instead, I'd suggest spending that money on a good therapist to develop a tiny bit of tolerance for dissenting views.

As an example, my bike insurance is with Progressive, a company which has donated millions to organizations (such as ACT and Move-On) dedicated to agenda that are largely totally opposing my own views. I doubt many reasonable people would argue those organizations are at least as far left politically as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Focus on the Family are far right politically. Should I then take my business elsewhere? Progressive is, exactly like Chick-Fil-A, an excellent company which treats both its customers and its employees better than does its competition while still delivering an excellent product at a competitive cost AND doing a lot of good with its donations.

In the end each of us should follow our own ethical guidelines, but this insisting that only our own viewpoint, on every issue, has any ethical basis is simply laughable.

 

[werepossum]

what if Chik Fil-A was an Islamic franchise that supported Sharia law?

Some might find a teeny bit of difference between those not wanting the state sanction of marriage to be expanded to include gays, and those wanting gays to be murdered by the state via cleansing fire.

Of course, we all know those finding such a difference are clearly intolerant racist inbred homophobes who deserve to be murdered by the state via cleansing fire, but still . . .

 

[Incorruptible]

what if Chik Fil-A was an Islamic franchise that supported Sharia law?

I wouldn't support them because there advocating murder

 

[alzan]

I wouldn't want to eat there if they did that.

The point is these idiots on the left claim to be tolerant but they only tolerate people with the same ideas and anyone who disagrees with them is viciously attacked

Viciously attacked? Where do you get your word definitions?

Were JC Penny & Ellen Degeneres viciously attacked by Christians who boycotted their stores a couple of months ago over a JC Penny ad featuring a same-sex couple?

 

[child of wonder]

Now we know for sure Chik-Fil-A is a true Christian company -- caught lying!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleym...etends-to-be-a-girl-for-pr-reasons-is-caught/

Pure comedy gold....

 

[alzan]

Now we know for sure Chik-Fil-A is a true Christian company -- caught lying!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleym...etends-to-be-a-girl-for-pr-reasons-is-caught/

Pure comedy gold....

Ha-ha

/Nelson

 

[rudder]

One of our alderman just killed their next Chicago store over this. I can see this being a problem in just about any major urban market they might want to enter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725,0,929023.story

There is no way the city council will override the alderman (if the local alderman dosen't approve of a development it does not happen) let alone when Rahm has come out and said they aren't welcome.

Funny that Chicago did not kick out the white sox and say they weren't welcome when the manager at the time, ozzie guillen had said some anti-gay remarks. And when is it wrong to express personal beliefs? Does the Chick-fil-A corporation not employ gays? Does the Chick-fil-A corporation not allow gay people to eat in it's restaurant? The owner of chick-fil-a was asked what his position was on same-sex marriage.

lineral intolerance rears it's ugly head once again and I think if chick-fil-a pursued it, I think they would have a valid discrimination suit against the city of chicago.