Chick-Fil-A under fire again

I've still not seen a compelling argument against same sex marriage or how it corrupts society.

Reasoning doesn't have to be compelling to you to be compelling to others.

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.

You'll be really surprised when Social Security goes bankrupt then.

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.

Yeah, there's no difference between the sexes.

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

Because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when you sell cupcakes or chicken sandwiches?

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.

Are you changing the topic from same sex marriage to whether homosexuality is immoral?

I don't think it's immoral. Other's might disagree, multiculturalism and all that. Didn't showing bare ankles before Memorial Day used to be immoral?

So speaking out against gay people (or their right to marry), is no different than speaking out against a group of Hispanics.

What kind of speaking out are you talking about, beside about same sex marriage? No one disputes that Hispanics have the right to marry, so it might not be the same thing.

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.

It's easy for you to discount the reasons of others. Maybe there's one or two you haven't thought of yet. It's almost like you started with the idea of "hate" and you don't want to look too closely in case you might have to change your mind.

On the flip side, what is the social value to invalidating an entire group of people for no substantial reason?

I'm not sure it is seen as invalidating anybody. As for the social value to oppose some sex marriage, they have their reasons, and it's not hate.

And why would I want to give those people my money?

Who said you had to?

[Robin Garr]

Because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when you sell cupcakes or chicken sandwiches?

Actually, it doesn't. The First Amendment protects us against censorship by government.

Because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when you sell cupcakes or chicken sandwiches?

Actually, it doesn't. The First Amendment protects us against censorship by government.

Let's not let little details distract us from re-inventing the Bill of Rights as we each see fit.

Because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when you sell cupcakes or chicken sandwiches?

Actually, it doesn't. The First Amendment protects us against censorship by government.

Let's not let little details distract us from re-inventing the Bill of Rights as we each see fit.

You are both surely correct. I wasn't intending to re-invent the Bill of Rights. Would you allow me to rephrase?

Just because someone decides to start a business, doesn't mean they have to stop sharing their beliefs just because some might disapprove.

How was that?

[Robin Garr]

Just because someone decides to start a business, doesn't mean they have to stop sharing their beliefs just because some might disapprove.
How was that?

Okay, mark this down. We can agree on that. Now, how about this:

If someone decides to start a business, and in doing so chooses to use his or her ownership position as a platform to express controversial political views that some find hateful, and uses some of the profits of that business to provide financial support to organizations that promote those views, then this person should not act shocked ... shocked ... to find that other people are using their free speech to name and shame him and his business, and choosing to spend their dollars elsewhere.

Agree?

Just because someone decides to start a business, doesn't mean they have to stop sharing their beliefs just because some might disapprove.
How was that?

Okay, mark this down. We can agree on that. Now, how about this:

If someone decides to start a business, and in doing so chooses to use his or her ownership position as a platform to express controversial political views that some find hateful, and uses some of the profits of that business to provide financial support to organizations that promote those views, then this person should not act shocked ... shocked ... to find that other people are using their free speech to name and shame him and his business, and choosing to spend their dollars elsewhere.

Agree?

I'd be surprised if the Chick-Fil-A folks didn't expect push back. They are Christians, so they expect to be persecuted. It's a foundational expectation.

But yeah, that's the marketplace of ideas. We agree on these points. Did I ever give the impression that I didn't support free speech all around?

But to further your scenario...

Don't be shocked if someone else comes along and points out that this attribution of hate is misguided and wrong, and is really a bullying tactic used to shut down debate. Just don't be shocked about that.
Okay?

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.

Unfortunately, government was getting involved with the issue of marriage, more than a generation ago, when it was illegal among several states for blacks and whites to marry -- which eventually resulted in the Federal Government (through the SCOTUS) handing down the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia. Sometimes, it takes a positive intrusion to eliminate a negative intrusion.

Unfortunately, government was getting involved with the issue of marriage, more than a generation ago, when it was illegal among several states for blacks and whites to marry -- which eventually resulted in the Federal Government (through the SCOTUS) handing down the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia.

Good point. Was the Federal government involved in those miscegenation laws? I always thought of them with the state level Jim Crow laws.

I've still not seen a compelling argument against same sex marriage or how it corrupts society.

Reasoning doesn't have to be compelling to you to be compelling to others.

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.

You'll be really surprised when Social Security goes bankrupt then.

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.

Yeah, there's no difference between the sexes.

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

Because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when you sell cupcakes or chicken sandwiches?

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.

Are you changing the topic from same sex marriage to whether homosexuality is immoral?

I don't think it's immoral. Other's might disagree, multiculturalism and all that. Didn't showing bare ankles before Memorial Day used to be immoral?

So speaking out against gay people (or their right to marry), is no different than speaking out against a group of Hispanics.

What kind of speaking out are you talking about, beside about same sex marriage? No one disputes that Hispanics have the right to marry, so it might not be the same thing.

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.

It's easy for you to discount the reasons of others. Maybe there's one or two you haven't thought of yet. It's almost like you started with the idea of "hate" and you don't want to look too closely in case you might have to change your mind.

On the flip side, what is the social value to invalidating an entire group of people for no substantial reason?

I'm not sure it is seen as invalidating anybody. As for the social value to oppose some sex marriage, they have their reasons, and it's not hate.

And why would I want to give those people my money?

Who said you had to?

What the hell, I have some time to kill....

1. Reasoning doesn't have to be compelling to me, but it has to be compelling in general. If I shoot Steve H and say my reasoning was because a hamburger told me to do it, it might be compelling to me, but I'm still going to jail.

2. Still not seeing the dearth of population. And I'm not looking at the legal ramifications for various unions, just the cultural in this instance. The government has plenty of its own problems in every regard.

3. Straw man. You have not addressed my statement in any meaningful way.

4. Why speak out at all? What is to gain apart from alienating customer bases and opening yourself up to scorn? If CFA came out against mass murders I don't think anyone would bat an eye. But there is no reason to come out against gay marriage. Sorry, no "good" reason.

5. If we are going to posit that gay marriage is immoral then I feel safe in assuming that the underlying premise is that homosexuality is immoral, so yes, I think both arguments are invested in this discussion. Your example of a "used to be" immorality works against you here.

6. I'm talking about any "speaking out" that condemns a people for an involuntary characteristic. Do not muddle the issue.

7. I am all open to ideas I have not thought of yet. That is the point of this part of the conversation. I'm not discounting the reasons of others if they are credible reasons. (see hamburger example above) If you can present an argument against gay marriage that is based on more than "because I say so" we might have a discussion here. I've read the Christian arguments against gay marriage and pretty much all of them reduce to "because I (or the Bible) say so." They have no weight in a non-Christian capacity. So if we were arguing this point in a 100% Christian society, that defense would have ground. We do not, so the credibility of that defense is limited at best. If CFA wants to only sell chicken to Christians that is fine, I'm all for it. I will be interested to see the screening process. But they do not, they want to shove their chicken sandwiches and outmoded rhetoric down the throats of anybody with $8 and a hunger pain. If that is your goal, where is the upside of alienating a demographic? You can't live in a multi-cultural society, then pick a group to denounce, and expect to be applauded for it or to be seen as terribly positive. Again, give me something other than hate to accredit this to. (apologies for the soapboxing there in the middle)

8.Show me how denouncing the right of a group of people to marry does not invalidate that group.

9. No one says I have to, and I am very thankful for it.

Yeah you might have a [profanity removed] point, if you weren't just comparing a hypothetical with cold hard facts.

At least they are firm enough and confident enough in their beliefs to make them public! A lot more than we did say about many people in organizations.

Maybe they don't have the backbone you thought they did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/chick-fil-a-jim-henson-toy-recall-gay_n_1699597.html

Please when you guys set up a protest outside Chik-Fil-A, post when and where so I can be sure to show up and get me a spicy chicken sandwich

Hey, don't wait for us. Feel free to drop in there any time.

[Robin Garr]

Please when you guys set up a protest outside Chik-Fil-A, post when and where so I can be sure to show up and get me a spicy chicken sandwich

Goes great with pepper spray?

Please when you guys set up a protest outside Chik-Fil-A, post when and where so I can be sure to show up and get me a spicy chicken sandwich

When have posters here expressed an interest in forming a public protest outside of a Chik-Fil-A? Way to come on board and draw caricatures of people on this board. What a foul chime in an otherwise intellectual debate. If your stance is against the disapproval of CFA's PR debacle, I recommend attending the school of Steve H. to study the practice of analytical discourse in the face of great opposition. I disagree with 90% of his arguments, but he never offends me.

I'd be surprised if the Chick-Fil-A folks didn't expect push back. They are Christians, so they expect to be persecuted. It's a foundational expectation.

Are you kidding?

Yeah right, Christians are just so under persecution these days!

The legacy of Maximian lives on!