Chick-Fil-A under fire again

At least one LGBTQ group seems to think the Chick-Fil-A controversy isn't as big a deal as people have made it out to be: http://queerplanet.net/2012/07/25/mains ... ntroversy/

It's a re-posted article from another site, but posting without commentary seems to imply some degree of agreement with the article's conclusions.

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

You're a good sport Ronnie!

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.

Of course, they don't find the need for same sex marriage to be compelling. So, there is a nice little symmetry for you.

Around 50% to 60% of the US population accepts their arguments. Are they all unreasonable haters? Or might there be something to it? Your job is to convince folks that it's not compelling. Waving your hands and asserting it won't get it done. Calling everyone a hater who disagrees with your views might not be the best plan for convincing them either.

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.

Like I said up thread, the institution of marriage has been on a downhill slide for a long time. Homosexuals really had nothing to do with it. So, they can't be blamed for ruining an institution, that has already been FUBAR.

But, I can see why folks might want to restore it to where it was. And children are central to their worldview. So, your writing off the value of marriage for the raising of children, just means you don't really understand their views at all. And probably don't even want to understand their views.

I should have explained this better before, rather than be snarky about Social Security, which really is in a state of demographic collapse by the way.

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

It's not clear to me what postmodernism has to do with it, but not everyone agrees that men and women are interchangeable. Probably most people don't agree. Definitely, those opposed to same sex marriages don't agree.

So, this can't be justification for asserting that opponents of same sex marriage are haters, unless those who think men and women aren't interchangeable are haters too. Are these folks haters too Ronnie?

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.

Just because you can't think of a reason why you'd speak out, doesn't mean they don't have one. And how does it make any difference? If they opposed same sex marriage, but never said anything wouldn't they still be haters?

And why are you speaking out against them? There are just as many potential customers for you to lose. Why do you do it?

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.

Not really. Postmodernism says morals are flexible, and can be manipulated to control people. 20 years ago, no one asserted that it was a moral imperative to support same sex marriage. Now suddenly, if you don't support same sex marriage, not only are you immoral, but you are a hater.

So color me unimpressed when postmodernists want to talk about morals. Postmodernism is purely about the will to power. The morals are changed to support their goal of power. Pesky Christians getting in the way of reordering society? Hey! Let's recast the morality so they are haters!

And you know what, once the same sex marriage issue loses it's utility, the whole gang will move on to the next big thing. There always has to be haters to rile against you know.

My quip about bare ankles was a little dig at the rules of morality being manipulated. You can tell I was joking because bare ankles never had anything to do with Memorial day.

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

Men aren't allowed to relieve themselves in women's rooms. Does this invalidate men? Are they condemned to the purgatory of non women's rooms? Women's rooms are much nicer than men's rooms you know. Much nicer!

How does opposing same sex marriage condemn anyone? There isn't a logical contradiction in opposing same sex marriage and accepting that homosexuality is not immoral. These positions aren't mutually exclusive.

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. 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.

We're talking about the hater label here. It's not for you to say what reasons are credible to them. If they have reasons that are not hate, even if you don't understand or agree with the reasons, then they are not haters. Period.

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.

Even minorities, like homosexuals and Christians, are allowed to advocate for their beliefs in this country. It would be nice if they could do so without being condemned as haters.

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.

I'm sure they don't want to force their chicken sandwiches on anyone, but would gladly sell one to anyone that wanted one.

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.

I don't think you know what it means to live in a multicultural society. It's not "everyone agrees with RonnieD". It's not everyone "sit down and be quiet". Breaking news, Christians are a part of the deal.

Again, give me something other than hate to accredit this to.

Clearly, there's no reason you'll ever accept. Hate is were you started, and hate is where you'll stay.

(apologies for the soapboxing there in the middle)

This entire thread is about soapboxing.

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

See No. 6 above.

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!

Might there be more to it than you thought?

respected organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center

Citation needed.

While 99% of the groups the SPLC targets are clear cut hate groups, they are so clear cut that the SPLC gets no credit for noticing. And gains no respect for it.

And they have veered into anti-liberty positions enough to lose any they might have had.

Goes great with pepper spray?

I'll have the No. 6 Combo with extra Pepper Spray!

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.

It still applies to businesses. The government cant censor Chik-Fil-A or the New York Times.

Heck, that was the whole point of the Citizens United ruling. Which I find interesting that the generally considerd liberal justices were less expansive in their protection of the 1st amendment. Ditto for Kelo and the 5th.

But at least the 3rd is still standing strong.

[Robin Garr]

Nice video covers many of these points ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JprRWKQy ... ture=share

respected organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center

Citation needed.

While 99% of the groups the SPLC targets are clear cut hate groups, they are so clear cut that the SPLC gets no credit for noticing. And gains no respect for it.

And they have veered into anti-liberty positions enough to lose any they might have had.

Responding to myself with a citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Dees#Criticism

I will take the word of the head of the Southern Center for Human Rights. I will trust the Boyle County guy.

At least one LGBTQ group seems to think the Chick-Fil-A controversy isn't as big a deal as people have made it out to be: http://queerplanet.net/2012/07/25/mains ... ntroversy/

Wow don't let this article get around, we don't want facts getting in the way of an agenda

Wow don't let this article get around, we don't want facts getting in the way of an agenda

A cute thing to say. Thought I would look into that article. It's sourced verbatim from Newsmax, which, according to Nielsen Online, is the most trafficked conservative news website.

You might say that this queerplanet website implies agreement because they posted it on their site. But I'm puzzled by the idea that this posting somehow contains all the facts of the issue ("we don't want facts getting in the way"). The fact is, the article fails to mention a key quote by the Chick Fil A president. Including this quote would take out the possibility that the "mainstream media" is "invent(ing) gay marriage controversy."

--"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about," Cathy said in that interview.

That quote's nowhere to be found.

Eat at Chick Fil A all you want. I never will. I don't get why this thread continues. Everyone's free to spend their money the way they choose. I haven't stifled anyone's right to donate their money to organizations seeking to deny rights to fellow Americans. I simply made my own choice. Why is this an issue? Enjoy your spicy chicken sandwich. It doesn't have to interest you where the money is going. Either you agree with their stance on denying the right of legal marriage to a segment of the population, or you just can't be bothered to care what causes your purchase supports. In my case, I want to know where the money goes, so I can choose accordingly. Not everybody is like that. In the end, it doesn't matter. The tide turns toward equal rights for gay folks to marry, and it turns ever more quickly. I take comfort in the knowledge that conversations like this won't even be necessary a short while from now. And I look forward to the wedding invitations!

You might say that this queerplanet website implies agreement because they posted it on their site. But I'm puzzled by the idea that this posting somehow contains all the facts of the issue ("we don't want facts getting in the way"). The fact is, the article fails to mention a key quote by the Chick Fil A president. Including this quote would take out the possibility that the "mainstream media" is "invent(ing) gay marriage controversy."

--"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about," Cathy said in that interview.

That quote's nowhere to be found.

That's certainly true, and it's valid to question whether the article tells the whole story.

However, it's also valid to ask whether the radio-show quote tells the whole story. I've listened to the whole radio interview, and it wasn't about gay marriage at all. It was a conservative Christian host interviewing a conservative Christian businessman primarily about his family and his personal relationships, especially with his father. Cathy's comments about gay marriage, as concerning as they may be to some of us, were a brief aside and seemed to be articulated as his personal views and not as a statement of official Chick-Fil-A policy.

It's certainly anyone's prerogative to boycott a business if they don't like the owners' private political or social views, but I do think more has been made of this than the situation deserves.

It's certainly anyone's prerogative to boycott a business if they don't like the owners' private political or social views, but I do think more has been made of this than the situation deserves.

Jeff, I appreciate your reasoning and reasonable contribution here. Here is my summation of the situation, as I see it: Chick Fil A has had a reputation for some time of being opposed to marriage rights for gay people. The reason for that reputation was their contributions to organizations that work to deny these rights. However, until just recently, no one from the company had come out and made any kind of clear cut statement, so it wasn't altogether certain what exactly their goal was. The reason people have seized on this radio interview is that it has sealed the deal, in a way. You're right, on its own, it's not enough of a reason for angst. However, coupled with the donations, it's enough for me and a lot of other folks to forget about ever handing them money.

Jeff, I appreciate your reasoning and reasonable contribution here. Here is my summation of the situation, as I see it: Chick Fil A has had a reputation for some time of being opposed to marriage rights for gay people. The reason for that reputation was their contributions to organizations that work to deny these rights. However, until just recently, no one from the company had come out and made any kind of clear cut statement, so it wasn't altogether certain what exactly their goal was. The reason people have seized on this radio interview is that it has sealed the deal, in a way. You're right, on its own, it's not enough of a reason for angst. However, coupled with the donations, it's enough for me and a lot of other folks to forget about ever handing them money.

That's entirely reasonable and I see your point of view.

It would be nice if those who are concerned about this would be similarly reasonable and admit the possibility that:

1. At least some people who are not in favor of gay marriage aren't motivated by hate; and,

2. Not all conservative Christian talk about promoting, strengthening, or even defending marriage is merely a cover for homophobia. Conservative Christians get a lot of (justified) flak for perceived hypocrisy when they claim to care about marriage, while divorcing as frequently as the rest of the population. When organizations like Chick-Fil-A and the groups they give to talk about marriage and family, a lot of the time they really are just concerned about positively strengthening those institutions, and that's a good thing. Not that there's no anti-gay-marriage element to their "agenda," but - at least with some of these folks - it isn't what drives them.

I'm curious to know if anyone has changed their mind on this issue as a result of this discussion.

[Robin Garr]

I'm curious to know if anyone has changed their mind on this issue as a result of this discussion.

If they have, then we can start in on abortion, gun control and climate change. Solve those, and we're on to world hunger.