Chick-Fil-A under fire again

I never got an answe as to why anyone should vote to ban others from basic human rights when it doesn't concern or affect them.

A classic Burkean (who Robin has quoted favorably in this thread) argument against engineered social changes might be: Because they think marriage is very important to the long term success and happiness of our society and changing it is an unacceptable risk to our future?

If you're truly interested in understanding why they believe what they believe, the About page of the groups that Chick-Fil-A supports would be a good place to start. It's probably not a good idea to continue assuming that you understand their philosophy better than they do.

It's a little like me being opposed to eating liver and voting to make cooking and eating liver illegal for those that do enjoy it.

Trust me. Somebody, somewhere thinks folks are animal haters for eating liver, and are already doing everything they can to make sure it stops.

Keep channeling that inner libertarian Carla!

Any chance of me EVER identifying myself as a libertarian (even if I do agree with some of their ideas) was lost hen they collectively stood up and gave so much support to Sarah Palin.

Any chance of me EVER identifying myself as a libertarian (even if I do agree with some of their ideas) was lost hen they collectively stood up and gave so much support to Sarah Palin.

I don't think libertarians are overly attracted to Sarah Palin. Maybe I missed something? And don't confuse the small el libertarians with the big el Libertarian party, who take every chance to get in their own way.

Though I don't wholly subscribe to libertarian ideals, I think many of the principles are a way to cut the Gordian Knot around our dysfunctional politics. If the government was much less intrusive, then the stakes would be less when picking who runs its. The high stakes is one of the main reasons everything is so bitter and divisive these days.

For example, imagine government not being involved in the marriage issue at all, or at least getting the Federal government out of it. Then folks would be more free to arrange their lives as they saw fit. If there are fewer government officials telling us what to do, then there are fewer consequential political things to argue about. Think about that in general, and not just when the government intrudes on your own family's preferences.

[Robin Garr]

For example, imagine government not being involved in the marriage issue at all, or at least getting the Federal government out of it. Then folks would be more free to arrange their lives as they saw fit. If there are fewer government officials telling us what to do, then there are fewer consequential political things to argue about. Think about that in general, and not just when the government intrudes on your own family's preferences.

Serious question: Should the government have stayed out of racial segregation issues in the South in the '60s and '70s, then? Left Jim Crow to his own devices?

For example, imagine government not being involved in the marriage issue at all, or at least getting the Federal government out of it. Then folks would be more free to arrange their lives as they saw fit. If there are fewer government officials telling us what to do, then there are fewer consequential political things to argue about. Think about that in general, and not just when the government intrudes on your own family's preferences.

Serious question: Should the government have stayed out of racial segregation issues in the South in the '60s and '70s, then? Left Jim Crow to his own devices?

I assume by government, you mean Federal Government, as Jim Crow was government action at the state level.

The 14th Amendment was supposed to have the effect of extending Bill of Right restrictions to the states. Now, the Civil rights Act (1964?), opposed by the Democrats by the way, was an enacting measure to enforce the 14th Amendment, which Jim Crow laws were designed to obstruct. So, that was a good and legally proper thing.

Typically avoid chains, but there isn't a chicken sandwich in town I'd choose over Chick Fil A, true story. Guilty pleasure I suppose, but damn I love that place....especially for breakfast.

[Robin Garr]

Now, the Civil rights Act (1964?), opposed by the Democrats by the way

Not exactly true. A minority of Democrats voted against it. Those were the conservative Southern Democrats, also known as "segregationists." LBJ, serving out the end of Kennedy's term, mobilized public support in the aftermath of JFK's death to mobilize virtually all of the non-Southern Dems, plus shaming the Republicans, then known as the "Party of Lincoln," and put together a majority for a bill that had been unable to make it through Congress in any meaningful form before.

As I'm sure you are quite well aware, that segregationist Southern Democratic block all turned Republican within just a few years, thanks to the cynical "Southern Strategy" of Nixon and others, turning the "Solid South" Republican red and shaping the polarization that's still with us today. It's disingenuous in the extreme to point out that the racists of 1964 were Democrats when we know full well that they all turned Republican in direct response to the Dems' support of integration and civil rights.

Now, the Civil rights Act (1964?), opposed by the Democrats by the way

Not exactly true. A minority of Democrats voted against it. Those were the conservative Southern Democrats, also known as "segregationists." LBJ, serving out the end of Kennedy's term, mobilized public support in the aftermath of JFK's death to mobilize virtually all of the non-Southern Dems, plus shaming the Republicans, then known as the "Party of Lincoln," and put together a majority for a bill that had been unable to make it through Congress in any meaningful form before.

As I'm sure you are quite well aware, that segregationist Southern Democratic block all turned Republican within just a few years, thanks to the cynical "Southern Strategy" of Nixon and others, turning the "Solid South" Republican red and shaping the polarization that's still with us today. It's disingenuous in the extreme to point out that the racists of 1964 were Democrats when we know full well that they all turned Republican in direct response to the Dems' support of integration and civil rights.

Oops, sorry. Faulty recollection. What I should have said is that, the Republicans voted in favor by a larger margin than the Democrats.

[Robin Garr]

Oops, sorry. Faulty recollection. What I should have said is that, the Republicans voted in favor by a larger margin than the Democrats.

As restated, that is factually correct. But you failed to address the reality that it is also profoundly misleading unless we recognize that the opposing segregationist Democrats quickly transferred allegiance and became new Southern Republicans, and that this heritage persists into modern times.

Oops, sorry. Faulty recollection. What I should have said is that, the Republicans voted in favor by a larger margin than the Democrats.

As restated, that is factually correct. But you failed to address the reality that it is also profoundly misleading unless we recognize that the opposing segregationist Democrats quickly transferred allegiance and became new Southern Republicans, and that this heritage persists into modern times.

What do you want me to say? That Southern Republicans are racists?
Like her?
And him?
Or him?
Or maybe this guy?

[Robin Garr]

As restated, that is factually correct. But you failed to address the reality that it is also profoundly misleading unless we recognize that the opposing segregationist Democrats quickly transferred allegiance and became new Southern Republicans, and that this heritage persists into modern times.

What do you want me to say? That Southern Republicans are racists?{/quote]
No, Steve. I don't want you to say anything. What I stated is fact: The old Seg wing of the Southern Democratic Party converted to Republican after, and because of, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's simple history, and declaring that "The Democrats voted for segregation" becomes a lie if it ignores this reality.

You are playing intellectual games now, and I don't need to waste my time on that.

As restated, that is factually correct. But you failed to address the reality that it is also profoundly misleading unless we recognize that the opposing segregationist Democrats quickly transferred allegiance and became new Southern Republicans, and that this heritage persists into modern times.

What do you want me to say? That Southern Republicans are racists?

No, Steve. I don't want you to say anything. What I stated is fact: The old Seg wing of the Southern Democratic Party converted to Republican after, and because of, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's simple history, and declaring that "The Democrats voted for segregation" becomes a lie if it ignores this reality.

You are playing intellectual games now, and I don't need to waste my time on that.

I don't know about the intellectual games, but I'm confused that's for sure.

I've still not seen a compelling argument against same sex marriage or how it corrupts society. We do not have a population problem, so the need for opposite sex couples to procreate is null and void. As far as I can see that is the only difference between a same sex or opposing sex union. Postmodernism has rendered gender roles obsolete, so the notion that opposite sex pairings are required for gender modelling has no teeth. And I can see no other reason why two people being married has any interest in the gender of those two people.

So I do not see where any business has a "good reason" to speak out against gay marriage other than a unilateral invalidation of a group of people based on an involuntary characteristic. The only thing all gay people have in common is that they are gay. Being gay is not immoral in that it has no negative impact on a social group, and thus does not have a negative value to that group. So speaking out against gay people (or their right to marry), is no different than speaking out against a group of Hispanics. Without a valid reason to speak out against such a group, what other reasons can we ascribe to someone who does that? Hate might be an easy target, but I am open to alternatives.

On the flip side, what is the social value to invalidating an entire group of people for no substantial reason? And why would I want to give those people my money?

I've still not seen a compelling argument against same sex marriage or how it corrupts society. We do not have a population problem, so the need for opposite sex couples to procreate is null and void. As far as I can see that is the only difference between a same sex or opposing sex union. Postmodernism has rendered gender roles obsolete, so the notion that opposite sex pairings are required for gender modelling has no teeth. And I can see no other reason why two people being married has any interest in the gender of those two people.

So I do not see where any business has a "good reason" to speak out against gay marriage other than a unilateral invalidation of a group of people based on an involuntary characteristic. The only thing all gay people have in common is that they are gay. Being gay is not immoral in that it has no negative impact on a social group, and thus does not have a negative value to that group. So speaking out against gay people (or their right to marry), is no different than speaking out against a group of Hispanics. Without a valid reason to speak out against such a group, what other reasons can we ascribe to someone who does that? Hate might be an easy target, but I am open to alternatives.

On the flip side, what is the social value to invalidating an entire group of people for no substantial reason? And why would I want to give those people my money?

Ronnie you put it much more eloquently than I could. Thank you.

Seriously: Do people really EAT chicken sandwiches? It's probably been ten years since I did.

Chopped up chicken barbecued, cool. Fried chicken -- I'm helpess. But chicken sandwiches, fast food variety? Almost as tasteless as Lite, right?