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

Because a medical procedure is exactly the same, keep building that straw man.

So, in your world, telling a group that wishes to run a hospital that they must perform certain "medical procedures" that they find abhorrent is not denying them their fundamental rights?

If so, your perspective is severely limited.

I will say I agree with Steve H on one of his points. And I think this agreement is the very basis for everything else we disagree on.

You are such a tease!

if you're speaking of the pending merger between university, jewish and c.h.i., you're grossly mis-informed. abortions are not performed at university or jewish.

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to this.

this link is nothing more than a propaganda campaign. it is less than factual at best. i've worked in hospitals for longer than i care to say, and i've never heard of any of them performing abortions.abortions are performed in doctors offices and clinics, so to say a catholic hospital will close because obama is forcing them to perform abortions? really?FALSE
this is the type of fox news, twist the facts and enrage the sheep with buzz-words type of reporting that continues to further divide this country.

Steve-
I poked around the Google links for a few minutes. Obviously, you have devoted more time to this issue, so could you please provide the number of Catholic Hospitals forced to close specifically or primarily because they won't perform abortions in say the last 3 years? A list of specific hospitals would be helpful.
Thanks.
Bill

Because a medical procedure is exactly the same, keep building that straw man.

So, in your world, telling a group that wishes to run a hospital that they must perform certain "medical procedures" that they find abhorrent is not denying them their fundamental rights?

If so, your perspective is severely limited.

Not that you can even get an abortion in a hospital in this country but actually yes. If you're going into a field of work that will require you to do procedures you find abhorrent, find a new field to go into. Of course Christianity in particular is real good about picking and choosing when and why they want to stick to certain aspects of any requirement.s

Steve H, I do not entirely disagree with you, but the irony of a someone who espouses libertarian beliefs and freedom of speech objecting to others being vocal in their criticisms of Chik-fi-a is somewhat confusing me.

We may be getting into semantics here, but what does "hate" mean? What is the difference between hate, dislike, and intolerance?

If Chik-fil-a wants to send out a specific message towards a particular group linked by a similar, in-born trait, that is their right, but you can't be surprised if people within that group or support that group interpret as hate.

Again, I personally don't care what Chick-Fil-A or any restauranteur thinks about gay marriage or any other social issue. I would rather not hear that noise, and I hate mixing dining with politics. That said, everyone certainly has the right to voice their opinions, just as I have the right to avoid their establishments if I so choose.

As a representative of a selfish, apathetic group of Americans, I don't really have an opinion on gay marriage, although I tend to think "Whatever, why not?" as I feel my apathy is generally benevolent. Then again, I am not sure that I am a huge proponent of straight marriage.

All that said, I agree that Chik-Fil-A can say whatever they want, and I am not going to attack them, but I can understand why others do. I will defend their right to say whatever they want, which is not in danger, but I will not be upset when others respond angrily.

What a man and/or chicken do in the privacy of their bedrooms and/or coups is none of my business I'd just prefer stay out of it

Steve H, I do not entirely disagree with you, but the irony of a someone who espouses libertarian beliefs and freedom of speech objecting to others being vocal in their criticisms of Chik-fi-a is somewhat confusing me.

We may be getting into semantics here, but what does "hate" mean? What is the difference between hate, dislike, and intolerance?

If Chik-fil-a wants to send out a specific message towards a particular group linked by a similar, in-born trait, that is their right, but you can't be surprised if people within that group or support that group interpret as hate.

Again, I personally don't care what Chick-Fil-A or any restauranteur thinks about gay marriage or any other social issue. I would rather not hear that noise, and I hate mixing dining with politics. That said, everyone certainly has the right to voice their opinions, just as I have the right to avoid their establishments if I so choose.

As a representative of a selfish, apathetic group of Americans, I don't really have an opinion on gay marriage, although I tend to think "Whatever, why not?" as I feel my apathy is generally benevolent. Then again, I am not sure that I am a huge proponent of straight marriage.

All that said, I agree that Chik-Fil-A can say whatever they want, and I am not going to attack them, but I can understand why others do. I will defend their right to say whatever they want, which is not in danger, but I will not be upset when others respond angrily.

What a man and/or chicken do in the privacy of their bedrooms and/or coups is none of my business I'd just prefer stay out of it

The points (excellently stated) in this post fairly well represent my own feelings on this issue. I am a bit more than ambivalent about the gay marriage thing as I think people in general should not be made to forego their own dream of happiness because of the judgments of others (extreme examples excepted).

However I admit to being disturbed by this man/chicken/bedroom reference (extreme) and would gently suggest that it would be more appropriate on another kind of forum.....and I'm currently reheating some left over pizza with chicken on it and I'm most certainly not going to consume it in the bedroom. Good day.

Steve H, I do not entirely disagree with you, but the irony of a someone who espouses libertarian beliefs and freedom of speech objecting to others being vocal in their criticisms of Chik-fi-a is somewhat confusing me.

First of all, my beliefs do not correspond completely with libertarianism, though there does seem to be more and more overlap.

Secondly, I do not object to criticism of Chick-Fil-A. If I gave you that impression, it was inadvertent.

Thirdly, nothing I have said in this thread runs counter to a libertarian stance, as I have not called for any coercion, via government or any other means. I'm just arguing in a public forum, which seems like a very libertarian thing to me. YMMV.

We may be getting into semantics here, but what does "hate" mean? What is the difference between hate, dislike, and intolerance?

I don't think a philosophical discussion of semantics would be helpful in this forum. It might be interesting though.

If Chik-fil-a wants to send out a specific message towards a particular group linked by a similar, in-born trait, that is their right, but you can't be surprised if people within that group or support that group interpret as hate.

Well, what's the end game here? Is it a zero sum game? Will the owners of Chick-Fil-A be forced to be silent? Or will it go further, such that they can't even run their their business as they wish? Or will it go the other way, and gay marriage will be outlawed everywhere?

I'm looking for a third way where no one has to be hated or vilified. So, if I argue that responding with hate is not the best solution, how have I reduced anyone's right to free speech?

I'm looking for a third way where no one has to be hated or vilified.

I love it! Let's get started on that Via Media. Nobody gets to villify gay people, remember. If that's the case, then I won't villify Chik Fil-A.

I'm looking for a third way where no one has to be hated or vilified.

I love it! Let's get started on that Via Media. Nobody gets to villify gay people, remember. If that's the case, then I won't villify Chik Fil-A.

Welcome aboard!

[Robin Garr]

I love it! Let's get started on that Via Media. Nobody gets to villify gay people, remember. If that's the case, then I won't villify Chik Fil-A.

[ like ]

I still feel a false dichotomy here, though. Every day, around the nation and around the world, gay people - even kids - are being physically bullied, even beaten, sometimes killed; and suffering the stress and indignity of being hated (yes, I think that's legit) for their natural instinct. ''

I don't see political criticism of Chic-Fil-A as an institution, or S. Truett Cathy as an individual, rising to that level. Has anyone ever punched Mr. Cathy for practicing gay-bashing while dressed up in a business suit? I think not. Has anyone ever yelled hurtful names at CFA employees as they leave work? I doubt that. I just don't see this as a "your side, my side, they're just the same" situation.

But then, I'm a Via Media kind of guy, too ...

I love it! Let's get started on that Via Media. Nobody gets to villify gay people, remember. If that's the case, then I won't villify Chik Fil-A.

[ like ]

I still feel a false dichotomy here, though. Every day, around the nation and around the world, gay people - even kids - are being physically bullied, even beaten, sometimes killed; and suffering the stress and indignity of being hated (yes, I think that's legit) for their natural instinct. ''

As a side note - so are people who are overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis.

[Robin Garr]

As a side note - so are people who are overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Beaten? Killed? There's a Matthew Shepherd for obesity?

I have to think you're pot-stirring, Mark. Gay-bashing - especially among teens and college-age kids at those vulnerable ages - is on a whole different order of mean than most of the categories you mention; moreover, color, sex and disability enjoy federal civil-rights protection.

What's more, most of those other categories (women and minorities probably excepted) don't have to endure discrimination based on some people's notion of biblical interpretation.

And finally, do you really feel comfortable taking up the cudgel to support one form of discrimination by saying lots of other people suffer bigotry, too?

As a side note - so are people who are overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis.

I agree with this, but to be fair, if Chick-Fil-A openly announced their dislike of those who were overweight, bald, unattractive, the wrong color, the wrong sex, physically disabeled, living in mobile housing, living without housing, the wrong political persuasion, believe in God, don't believe in God, and have the heartbreak of psoriasis, i imagine the public backlash would be just as harsh, probably harsher.

I don't wish to speak for Mark, but...

I think he meant to point out that, given our fallen nature, there will always be prejudice and bullies. And if there weren't gays, fatties, etc., bullies would just make up a reason to be a bully.

He wasn't trying to say any one victim was better or worse than any other.