Chick-Fil-A lays it on the line: They don't like gay couples

As a side note - so are people who are overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis.

I agree with this, but to be fair, if Chick-Fil-A openly announced their dislike of those who were overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis, i imagine the public backlash would be just as harsh, probably harsher.

And to be even fairer, Chick-Fil-A didn't just pick gay marriage at random as something to oppose.

But, I don't remember Southwest airlines getting a huge amount of grief for forcing obese folks to buy two seats either. So, maybe gays *do* outrank fatties on the victim scale?

Should we organize the possible victims into a hierarchy?

But, I don't remember Southwest airlines getting a huge amount of grief for forcing obese folks to buy two seats either. So, maybe gays *do* outrank fatties on the victim scale?

At the risk of being a contrarian, I kinda do remember airlines getting a bunch of blowback about charging for extra seating for larger folks. Didn't remember Southwest in particular, but I assume you're correct. (No need to Google It For Me.)

But, I don't remember Southwest airlines getting a huge amount of grief for forcing obese folks to buy two seats either. So, maybe gays *do* outrank fatties on the victim scale?

At the risk of being a contrarian, I kinda do remember airlines getting a bunch of blowback about charging for extra seating for larger folks. Didn't remember Southwest in particular, but I assume you're correct. (No need to Google It For Me.)

You are correct, there was some blow back. But it, hmmm, blew over so to speak.

As a side note - so are people who are overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis.

I agree with this, but to be fair, if Chick-Fil-A openly announced their dislike of those who were overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis, i imagine the public backlash would be just as harsh, probably harsher.

And to be even fairer, Chick-Fil-A didn't just pick gay marriage at random as something to oppose.

But, I don't remember Southwest airlines getting a huge amount of grief for forcing obese folks to buy two seats either. So, maybe gays *do* outrank fatties on the victim scale?

Should we organize the possible victims into a hierarchy?

"And to be even fairer, Chick-Fil-A didn't just pick gay marriage at random as something to oppose."

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Maybe you can clarify it for me. I don't think most people who oppose things choose those things randomly. People choose to oppose something because, on some level, they disagree with it or it insults their sensibilities.

Also, I do not know that including obese folks in this list/discussion of "victims" is even appropriate. I certainly don't want to offend any obese people, and I am working on a solid beer gut myself, but it just doesn't seem accurate.

Regardless, I don't think anyone was suggesting a hierarchy. I believe what I was saying that is if you, as a restaurant, were to speak out against any of these groups, the backlash would be similar and expected, if not warranted.

But, I don't remember Southwest airlines getting a huge amount of grief for forcing obese folks to buy two seats either. So, maybe gays *do* outrank fatties on the victim scale?

At the risk of being a contrarian, I kinda do remember airlines getting a bunch of blowback about charging for extra seating for larger folks. Didn't remember Southwest in particular, but I assume you're correct. (No need to Google It For Me.)

You are correct, there was some blow back. But it, hmmm, blew over so to speak.

I don't remember hearing ever that the constitutional right to eat fattening food was denied to obese people, in combination with being charged for two seats.

Gay marriage is illegal, and until this is reversed, pouring salt on an open wound is ALWAYS going to piss people off. They f&%ked up by making the public announcement.

I believe what I was saying that is if you, as a restaurant, were to speak out against any of this groups, the backlash would be similar and expected, if not warranted.

That may just be the summation we have been pining for, lo these many pages.

"And to be even fairer, Chick-Fil-A didn't just pick gay marriage at random as something to oppose.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Maybe you can clarify it for me. I don't think most people who oppose things choose those things randomly. People choose to oppose something because, on some level, they disagree with it or it insults their sensibilities.

I was just trying to make the point that you just made here. Sorry for not being more literal.

Also, I do not know that including obese folks in this list/discussion of "victims" is even appropriate. I certainly don't want to offend any obese people, and I am working on a solid beer gut myself, but it just doesn't seem accurate.

Regardless, I don't think anyone was suggesting a hierarchy. I believe what I was saying that is if you, as a restaurant, were to speak out against any of this groups, the backlash would be similar and expected, if not warranted.

It was more or figurative/sarcastic response to the collective subthread started by Mark, and continued by Robin, you, and I.

Again, sorry for not being more literal.

I don't remember hearing ever that the constitutional right to eat fattening food was denied to obese people, in combination with being charged for two seats.

Just wait until the government is in charge of everyone's health care. Already in the UK, where overweight folks and smokers aren't eligible for certain treatments because they have damaged their own health.

And even here, you can look at the bans on trans fats that are peculating around the country. Camel's nose, meet tent.

Gay marriage is illegal, and until this is reversed, pouring salt on an open wound is ALWAYS going to piss people off. They f&%ked up by making the public announcement.

Well, it's possible that those opposed to gay marriage aren't happy campers. And I'm pretty sure that the public announcement was part of the point.

Go back and read Mark Head's post on getting the government out of the marriage business. Ins't this a libertarian compromise that we can all get behind?

[Already in the UK, where overweight folks and smokers aren't eligible for certain treatments because they have damaged their own health.

Once again I'll ask for credible links providing more specifics. Which treatments? In all circumstances?
Only treatments that rule out positive outcomes based upon patient's health? More detail would be helpful.
Thanks.
Bill

[Already in the UK, where overweight folks and smokers aren't eligible for certain treatments because they have damaged their own health.

Once again I'll ask for credible links providing more specifics. Which treatments? In all circumstances?
Only treatments that rule out positive outcomes based upon patient's health? More detail would be helpful.
Thanks.
Bill

Check here.

And here

As a side note - so are people who are overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Beaten? Killed? There's a Matthew Shepherd for obesity?

I have to think you're pot-stirring, Mark. Gay-bashing - especially among teens and college-age kids at those vulnerable ages - is on a whole different order of mean than most of the categories you mention; moreover, color, sex and disability enjoy federal civil-rights protection.

What's more, most of those other categories (women and minorities probably excepted) don't have to endure discrimination based on some people's notion of biblical interpretation.

And finally, do you really feel comfortable taking up the cudgel to support one form of discrimination by saying lots of other people suffer bigotry, too?

All I was pointing out was that the world was full of cruelty and people receive abuse in one form or another a variety of irrational reasons. Whether they are motivated by what they read in the Bible or in MAD magazine is beside the point. As a faith challenged person most religious dogma strikes me as irrational.

Finally if you read my earlier post you would understand that I'm against any legal obsticals for those of the same sex who want to get married - I'm also against the paradigm of a quasi-government sanctioned religious institution called marriage as it currently exists.

[Robin Garr]

... I'm against any legal obstacles for those of the same sex who want to get married - I'm also against the paradigm of a quasi-government sanctioned religious institution called marriage as it currently exists.

Actually, I can agree with both of those precepts. Strongly on the first and with a bit of a shrug on the second. Recognizing marriage in a religious setting as a civil marriage recognizes the reality that many people want to be married in a church, even if that's one of the few times they'll go to one without forcing folks to undergo a separate step if they want to add a religious ceremony to the civil process, as they do in France. But I'd have no problem with making the civil step a requirement and the religious step voluntary, if that's what it would take to ensure that any two consenting adults who want to marry each other may do so. What I don't get is why anybody outside that one-on-one relationship should CARE.

"What I don't get is why anybody outside that one-on-one relationship should CARE." Robin Garr


Sorry, I'm very bad about the quote thingy when it involves multiple quotes.

I'm sure what Robin cares about and what I deeply care about is everyone being treated equally. I support anyone loving each other and choosing their partner. I believe that the rights inherent in ANY marrieage should apply to all. Spousal health care, power of attorney, visiting/making health decisions, raising children, being recognized publicly in our society as a couple, being afforded the same degree of care and respect as any other couple.

I do agree with Robin that it is no one's business if we all had a level playing field. We seem to forget that we are discussing a human rights issue, not a business plan. Is it permissible for any of us to deny human rights based on a business plan? No. Pure and simple.

While many obfuscate the basic premise under the guise of semantics it still remains a basic question: Why would a basic human right be opposed?

Spare me the free speech and individual opinion argument under a generalization context. Explain to me why you are opposed to two people, regardless of sex, joining in a civil/religious partnership?

"What I don't get is why anybody outside that one-on-one relationship should CARE." Robin Garr


Sorry, I'm very bad about the quote thingy when it involves multiple quotes.

I'm sure what Robin cares about and what I deeply care about is everyone being treated equally. I support anyone loving each other and choosing their partner. I believe that the rights inherent in ANY marrieage should apply to all. Spousal health care, power of attorney, visiting/making health decisions, raising children, being recognized publicly in our society as a couple, being afforded the same degree of care and respect as any other couple.

I do agree with Robin that it is no one's business if we all had a level playing field. We seem to forget that we are discussing a human rights issue, not a business plan. Is it permissible for any of us to deny human rights based on a business plan? No. Pure and simple.

While many obfuscate the basic premise under the guise of semantics it still remains a basic question: Why would a basic human right be opposed?

Spare me the free speech and individual opinion argument under a generalization context. Explain to me why you are opposed to two people, regardless of sex, joining in a civil/religious partnership?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that legal marriage is a "basic human right". For example you can't marry your brother, sister, mother, father, multiple people, someone under the age of consent, etc. So their clearly are legal limitations - basic rights are like speech, religion, etc.

I can't recall anyone who's been outwardly or stringently opposed to gay marriage on this thread so I'm not sure who you are addressing - the thread was originally about a chicken joint that caters to the Christian right. I think several here find the mix of politics and food distasteful - no pun intended.

So comparing the people who own Chick-fil-a to Nazis and the KKK isn't really THAT big of a stretch. Take out the murder and open militantism and you're pretty close.

I have avoided this debate for any number of reasons but I can't get past this. No matter where you are on this issue I do not see how it compares AT ALL to killing of 6 million people. I get this is a touchy subject, but I'm not sure anything compares to what the Nazis did, especially how one business chooses to express its political/religious beliefs I disagree with Chris completely. It is THAT big of a stretch. Can't believe no one else had called this statement out.

Did you even bother to read the last line of my post? If you did you would realize that you are proving my point. Yes, killing 6 million people is far worse than politically opposing gay marriage except that they both forms of oppression. Again.. you're only arguing degree. Just how much oppression are you personally willing to tolerate?

Me, I draw the line at any. I'm assuming your line is somewhere between any and 6 million dead.

To each their own. Just don't pretend like they aren't portions of the same tree. Hate and bigotry being the roots.