Chick-Fil-A under fire again

Nimbus reminded me that I won't eat at Papa John's either. I would say why but contrary people will just pick apart the mundane details until I'm bored. But I agree that voting with your dollars is the best statement you can make. Which got me thinking... this CFA thing isn't the only thing I do this with.

I refuse to see any movie that Mel Gibson is involved with.

Lauryn Hill said she'd rather be broke than have white people listen to her music. You have a deal Mrs. Hill.

I won't be going to that Creationist Theme Park either.

...and so on. I'm sure a lot of people do this. Chik Fil A is just one more example of too much opinion and not enough business sense. But they have Sarah Palin's support. So there's that.

While I view the desire among some politicians to block CFA expansion in their areas as a potential First Amendment violation, Dan Cathy's self-inflated perception of moral and spiritual superiority cannot be overlooked as having ignited this absurd and unnecessary issue...

Lauryn Hill said she'd rather be broke than have white people listen to her music. You have a deal Mrs. Hill.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lauryn.asp

FWIW

...or we could just get back to discussing food...
Deb

I'd agree with this sentiment, but when the Food Dude himself starts the thread...


Maybe the page views were down?

First of all, apologies for the late reply, real life intervened.

#4 The forced imposition of religious beliefs on others.

I don't agree with some of their stated motivation, e.g. collective guilt is, like, sooooo old testament. But, they do have a point that the decline in marriage has corresponded to an increase of many societal ills. I'm willing to concede that they may have a good point about the decline of strong families, independent of the whole religion thing.

Obviously, their religious beliefs inform their positions, as for all of us. But as far as I can tell, there's nothing in their advocacy about imposing religious beliefs. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

#5 the ability of buying any election to suit your own whims regardless of the long term benefits for American society.

Everyone has the right to raise money for political advocacy. There were no complaints from the left when Obama was raising records amount of money, including Wall Street support. His opponents, everyone in fact, has the same rights.

I hope all is going well in Syracuse! I'll be thinkig of you when the first lake effect snow hits.

At the end of the day, the issue comes down to two fundamental issues:

1) the definition of marriage and decisions regarding who can marry
2) the right to the exercise of religious freedom

You forgot (at least) one:

3) What's best for the long term health of American society.

Steve, I actually had that and then erased it. Here's why...

To assume that decisions are made from that perspective is to assume that power does not continue to play a significant role in the actual decisions that are made. I doubt there are many people out there that are beyond mediocre at balancing their own wants and beliefs with what is best for the long term health of American society. Furthermore, there seems to be an impossible degree of objectivity in assuming that we know what's best for the long term health of American society. Is gun ownership healthy or not healthy? Divorce? Standardized testing in education? The continued protection of religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc.?

Positivism would try to convince use that we can actually establish, scientifically, what is and what is not in our long-term best interests. Smoking and obesity seem not to be in our best interest as the evidence shows. But, how does one go about studying the effects of same sex marriage if we don't allow for it? By not allowing for it, we can preemptively make claims about how detrimental it is without acknowledging that it is up against the dominant privileging of traditional marriage. I guess you can always buy into the research conducted by Mark Regnerus, but I'd proceed with caution:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/13/ut-austin-scrutinizes-ethics-controversial-same-sex-parenting-study

I have seen the brewhaha around that study. I think I even posted a link about it earlier in this thread.

I know your libertarian tendencies are increasing, and I really don't know where you are with that, but many advocate for increasing freedom when it aligns with their preferences, and are silent on that topic when it doesn't, e.g. nationalized healthcare, historic preservation restrictions on the use of property, etc.

The thing is, everyone is free to advocate for what they think is best and then martial their evidence. This is their right regardless of whether they are eventually proven right or wrong. None of us know the best thing with ultimate certainty, we only think we do, and thus the market place of ideas. Hopefully, everything will be considered by the electorate over the due course of time. I think the Chick-Fil-A folks are well meaning in this regard, and thus have a legitimate voice in the debate.

The deployment of this "hate" meme is pernicious and cynical. It's not designed to further debate, it is designed to shut it down and push adversaries to the sideline. It's really a fascist tactic, and I'll not be silent before it.

Heathen though I may be, I have family and friends who are Christian of various denominations, and none of them are filled with hate. NONE. of. them. So, I don't know why it is so difficult for enlightened, educated people to stop with the demonization and grant then the good will that they deserve as fellow Americans.

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

I'm going to use this note to make my exit from this line of conversation:

Has my mind changed? No.
Have I been challenged and required to examine more closely my beliefs and ideas about important topics in my culture? Yes.

I think that is the ultimate goal of a free exchange of ideas. Not to change minds, but to challenge and cause examination of our ideas and beliefs. Change must always come from within.

Adieu

Thanks for hanging in their Ronnie!

And I agree 100%. Change must come from within.

Lauryn Hill said she'd rather be broke than have white people listen to her music. You have a deal Mrs. Hill.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lauryn.asp

FWIW

Hmm... well what do ya know. It doesn't really matter though. I still hate her music.

Battle lines are being drawn. Choose your sides.

If forced to choose sides, I will choose the side of no hate.

Link 1
Link 2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conor-gau ... 11566.html

This article says it for me. Steve, you keep going back and going back to the "hate" thing. I don't care why people want to deny gay folks rights - be it hate, fear, concern, whatever, don't give a rip - because the outcome is the same. This piece sums up all I have to say on the topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conor-gaughan/chick-fil-a-homophobia_b_1711566.html

This article says it for me. Steve, you keep going back and going back to the "hate" thing. I don't care why people want to deny gay folks rights - be it hate, fear, concern, whatever, don't give a rip - because the outcome is the same. This piece sums up all I have to say on the topic.

I can probably find a few things to nitpick in this article, but I really don't have any objections in general. I suspect if this thread had proceeded in the same fashion I would never have made an appearance.

Thanks for posting Antonia.

Battle lines are being drawn. Choose your sides.

If forced to choose sides, I will choose the side of no hate.

Link 1
Link 2

Are you actually implying that the Chik-Fil-A/Sarah Palins of the world side is the side of "no hate?"

Are you implying some kind of moral equivalency?

Battle lines are being drawn. Choose your sides.

If forced to choose sides, I will choose the side of no hate.

Link 1
Link 2

Are you actually implying that the Chik-Fil-A/Sarah Palins of the world side is the side of "no hate?"

Are you implying some kind of moral equivalency?

Not even moral equivalency, I say that the Left is the side of hate now. Make me pick, I'm taking Dick Chaney's side.

And on that note......

[Robin Garr]

I know I started this thread. Nevertheless, I have to say this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI