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

Steve, you know that was comparison by analogy and not a direct one-for-one comparison. And shame on your for employing a false cause to veer the argument!

For that, and since you asked for clarification, I will give it (even though I think you already know this): comparison by analogy is a form of inductive reasoning that constructs a logical relationship between two parties to extenuate similarities. Comparison by analogy does not imply a direct one-for-one correlation between the parties, but instead employs the parallel cases to bring attention to characteristics both parties share. For example, how is a car more like an airplane or a bicycle. From there we can construct a comparison by analogy to explore which parallel case car-bicycle, car-plane best answers our question based on a set of predetermined criteria (i.e. we are looking for fast modes of transportation, or we are looking for modes of transportation by land, etc.) It does not require cars, bicycles, and planes to be identical for the comparison to be valid.

I can construct a full comparison by analogy answering "How are the Chick-fil-A Christians like Nazi (slave owners, etc.) based on the criteria of 'thinking they are doing the right thing,'" if you really want me to, but I think it will probably bore everyone here more than I think I already have. Particularly when you already know what my original point was.

And I think I made that point very clear in the original post.

I don't want the government to force Chick-fil-A to grant franchises to any specific group (nor do I think they will), but if they say they don't like gays, I don't have to buy their chicken. Which, I think, is how this whole thread started anyway. Personal choice to support or not support a given business based on their business ethics and policy.

This doesn't make me cry.

The loss of anyone's freedom of conscience should at least make you a little sad, or worried that your freedom might be next.

I don't typically do things that hurt other people, so I don't worry much about this. I'm a smoker, yet I was always a proponent of the smoking ban.

Now back to the assholiness...

It's too bad about their Big-O business, but how does it help them if the same thing is done to Chik-Fil-A?

Tell me, please, when I said it would help them - it was never my goal to resurrect my uncles' business, but just stating my knowledge of what's gone down. Chik-Fil-A's ideals are in line with same things that hurt them. We live in Louisville, but Ky is very rural and landscaped with impressionable people that fear change in their bigotry. I'm of the mindset to alter that.

[Now will you PLEASE begin a 1/2 priced pint link, please? And thanks for posting all that you do, Steve. Honestly. You always makes me think.

I'd be willing to do this. Is a half price pint a common promotion? This could be the start of something big!

Wishful thinking

I've said it before and I stand by my position.

1. Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law and should be able to enter into relationships as they choose.

2. Marriage is essentially a religious construct - therefore religious institutions should be able to marry or not marry whom ever they choose. Church's or similar institutions that are cool with gay marriage can marry away.

3. Marriage should not have a legal standing - it's a religious/cultural institution.

4. Everyone of every stripe that wants a legal contract with their domestic partner should get a civil union that spells out the legal responsibilities of the involved parties.

I like this solution as it (a) pisses everyone off and (b) makes logical sense.

All these emotional rants and arguments are droll but this is a legal issue and should be treated with some sense of rationality. Interesting that a chicken restaurant is "full of hatred" but Obama gets a free pass even though he ran for president as "against gay marriage" and even now, in 2011, his position is only "evolving", whatever that means. I guess he's either a liar in regards to his position or a hater.

My earlier assertion about not being interested in public debate "on this topic" was directed specifically at Chick-Fil-A. Somehow this became read as directed at "opposition to gay marriage" or, even more broadly, Christians. I won't comment on how this shift happened or why it happened.

That's about all I'm going to say. I have a big event coming up on Tuesday, so I don't have the time or emotional energy to engage this conversation further. I'm putting my part of it to bed before going to bed myself. Tomorrow's a new day.

[Insert comment here about me ducking out because I don't want to engage public debate.]

Steve, you know exactly what Ronnie means. To put it in the terms you've put it in is a brilliant way of discrediting Ronnie and ending the discussion right there, though - to make it look like Ronnie's calling Chik Fil-A a bunch of slave-owning Nazis. You know that's not what he means. You know.

It's what the talking heads on Fox do.
This has been a very interesting thread as all of the responses have been very informed, strong opinions and quite civil. I wish all of the discourse on the forum were more like this ,than some of the other threads that kind of get lost along the way.

You all do realize that the Nazi party, along with most skin head organizations and the KKK identify themselves very strongly and proudly as Christian, more specifically Protestants. Antisemitism as well as racism and their various other forms of bigotry come from a perversion of the writing found in the bible.

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.

Do you want to take gay people out and kill them, or just refuse them equal rights and opportunity? Do you want to hang black people, keep them as slaves or just not let them date white girls? Oppression is oppression regardless of form. The only thing you're arguing is degree.

Degree matters, don't you think?

Btw, is it appropriate to post on a Chik-Fil-A thread on a Sunday?

[Robin Garr]

Degree matters, don't you think?

The White Citizens Councils were to the Klan as Rotary is to the guys drinking beer down behind the gas station out in Garage Logic, but they were both still on the same side.

Btw, is it appropriate to post on a Chik-Fil-A thread on a Sunday?

My earlier assertion about not being interested in public debate "on this topic" was directed specifically at Chick-Fil-A. Somehow this became read as directed at "opposition to gay marriage" or, even more broadly, Christians. I won't comment on how this shift happened or why it happened.

As unlikely as it seems, I was trying to avoid this thread too. So, you don't have to explain why you don't want to debate this issue. What brought me into this was your combination of calling others out for their hate, and then refusing to even listen to, or examine their point of view. Everything else was a distraction for me, so I am sorry that my lack of focus lead directly to me overgeneralizing your position.

That's about all I'm going to say. I have a big event coming up on Tuesday, so I don't have the time or emotional energy to engage this conversation further. I'm putting my part of it to bed before going to bed myself. Tomorrow's a new day.

[Insert comment here about me ducking out because I don't want to engage public debate.]

Take care of your business. You don't owe anything to this conversation, or me. Like I'm fond of saying, I'm just some schmo on the Internet.

Steve, you know exactly what Ronnie means. To put it in the terms you've put it in is a brilliant way of discrediting Ronnie and ending the discussion right there, though - to make it look like Ronnie's calling Chik Fil-A a bunch of slave-owning Nazis. You know that's not what he means. You know.

It's what the talking heads on Fox do.
This has been a very interesting thread as all of the responses have been very informed, strong opinions and quite civil. I wish all of the discourse on the forum were more like this ,than some of the other threads that kind of get lost along the way.

Seriously, I was just asking Ronnie to clarify his thoughts. Internet forums are like e-mails. It's very easy to misunderstand what others are saying. So, I seriously resent the implication that I was trying to do something sneaky.

All that aside, I don't wish to be misunderstood in the future. Perhaps someone could review my questions and show me how I might improve my approach for the next time?

Steve, you know that was comparison by analogy and not a direct one-for-one comparison. And shame on your for employing a false cause to veer the argument!

For that, and since you asked for clarification, I will give it (even though I think you already know this): comparison by analogy is a form of inductive reasoning that constructs a logical relationship between two parties to extenuate similarities. Comparison by analogy does not imply a direct one-for-one correlation between the parties, but instead employs the parallel cases to bring attention to characteristics both parties share. For example, how is a car more like an airplane or a bicycle. From there we can construct a comparison by analogy to explore which parallel case car-bicycle, car-plane best answers our question based on a set of predetermined criteria (i.e. we are looking for fast modes of transportation, or we are looking for modes of transportation by land, etc.) It does not require cars, bicycles, and planes to be identical for the comparison to be valid.

Yes, I'm aware of argument by analogy. My question was an obviously poor attempt to see how far you wanted to take your analogy. I could not answer your question adequately without understanding that.

I can construct a full comparison by analogy answering "How are the Chick-fil-A Christians like Nazi (slave owners, etc.)[/i] what my original point was.

And I think I made that point very clear in the original post.

Okay, how about this. It is odious to analogize the owners of Chick-Fil-A with Nazis, the KKK, and slave owners. I could've started with that. I didn't. I asked for clarification. And somehow, I'm the bad guy!

See, folks who oppose the positions that the owners of Chick-Fil-A are supporting, go from zero to hate accusations in 5.6 seconds. Comparing folks with nazis, etc. looks exactly like this -- in spades. That leaves little room for discussion. I was just trying to leave room for this discussion to continue.

I don't want the government to force Chick-fil-A to grant franchises to any specific group (nor do I think they will), but if they say they don't like gays, I don't have to buy their chicken. Which, I think, is how this whole thread started anyway. Personal choice to support or not support a given business based on their business ethics and policy.

This is my position as well.

Where I think we differ, is that I am willing to grant that my philosophical opponents are proceeding in good faith, and not from hate.

You all do realize that the Nazi party, along with most skin head organizations and the KKK identify themselves very strongly and proudly as Christian, more specifically Protestants. Antisemitism as well as racism and their various other forms of bigotry come from a perversion of the writing found in the bible.

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.

Do you want to take gay people out and kill them, or just refuse them equal rights and opportunity? Do you want to hang black people, keep them as slaves or just not let them date white girls? Oppression is oppression regardless of form. The only thing you're arguing is degree.

Hannibal Lecter is a foodie! Just saying.

This doesn't make me cry.

The loss of anyone's freedom of conscience should at least make you a little sad, or worried that your freedom might be next.

I don't typically do things that hurt other people, so I don't worry much about this. I'm a smoker, yet I was always a proponent of the smoking ban.

I was thinking more along the lines of if the government decided that anyone who smoked would not be eligible for health insurance anymore.

It's easy to support the freedoms of those that don't offend us. It is more important to support the freedom of those who offend us.

Now back to the assholiness...

It's too bad about their Big-O business, but how does it help them if the same thing is done to Chik-Fil-A?

Tell me, please, when I said it would help them - it was never my goal to resurrect my uncles' business, but just stating my knowledge of what's gone down. Chik-Fil-A's ideals are in line with same things that hurt them.

I don't see Chick-Fil-A telling any other business who they may hire and fire. They are just trying to run their own business under principles that they think are important.

We live in Louisville, but Ky is very rural and landscaped with impressionable people that fear change in their bigotry. I'm of the mindset to alter that.

This is a worthy goal.

But, (there is always a butt, er.. but isn't there?)...

How can anyone expect to change another's mind by telling them that they are haters a hating. The rhetoric around this issue is about casting out and shunning, not engagement. From where I'm sitting, it's all posturing for in-group solidarity and not really about changing anyone's mind.

I've said it before and I stand by my position.

1. Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law and should be able to enter into relationships as they choose.

2. Marriage is essentially a religious construct - therefore religious institutions should be able to marry or not marry whom ever they choose. Church's or similar institutions that are cool with gay marriage can marry away.

3. Marriage should not have a legal standing - it's a religious/cultural institution.

4. Everyone of every stripe that wants a legal contract with their domestic partner should get a civil union that spells out the legal responsibilities of the involved parties.

I like this solution as it (a) pisses everyone off and (b) makes logical sense.

All these emotional rants and arguments are droll but this is a legal issue and should be treated with some sense of rationality. Interesting that a chicken restaurant is "full of hatred" but Obama gets a free pass even though he ran for president as "against gay marriage" and even now, in 2011, his position is only "evolving", whatever that means. I guess he's either a liar in regards to his position or a hater.

I completely agree with this, all of it. And you have said it much better than me.

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.