Chick-Fil-A under fire again

Sure. As an individual you have the right to express any opinion you want. As a business owner/operator you may not infringe on the rights of that individual unless those opinions are in direct conflict with the nature or standards of said business.

Thanks for the reply.

I really don't understand why a business, especially a sole proprietorship or partnership, doesn't enjoy the same rights as people. As an individual, you have complete freedom of association with anyone you want, but as soon as you start baking cupcakes (or chicken sandwiches) for sale and hire an assistant, you have no freedom of association anymore?

So, a pro-same-sex marriage cupcake baker should have to keep the "hater" as an employee, but in good conscience, couldn't buy products from other "haters". How does this make any sense?

Furthermore, by not firing said employee you are demonstrating your ability to allow divergent ideas to exist, even if you don't agree with them. CFA doesn't even entertain those who do not fit their worldview. Big difference.

Yeah. You are a light unto the world and Chick-Fil-A is like Nazis, right?

The only way that employee gets fired on those grounds is if they allow their views to negatively impact my business or another employee.

Let's say he's a good employee and never discusses politics or controversial issues at work. But say, someone publishes a list with his name on it, showing that he contributes to those same traditional family groups as the owners of Chick-Fil-A? And then all of the other "enlightened" employees start harassing the "hater" such that your business is disrupted? What if you ask the "enlightened" ones to play nice, but they persist in harassing the "hater" (who just wants to be left alone) and never let it drop. What do you do then?

You won't buy chicken sandwiches from "haters" so as not to support their "evil" causes, but you will disrupt your business to continue to pay wages to another "hater" who likewise supports those "evil" causes. How does that make sense?

As an individual, you have complete freedom of association with anyone you want, but as soon as you start baking cupcakes (or chicken sandwiches) for sale and hire an assistant, you have no freedom of association anymore?

What? You can associate with whomever you like as a business or private individual. If I don't agree with your stance, I am free to go somewhere else. How do you not get that?

But say, someone publishes a list with his name on it, showing that he contributes to those same traditional family groups as the owners of Chick-Fil-A? And then all of the other "enlightened" employees start harassing the "hater" such that your business is disrupted? What if you ask the "enlightened" ones to play nice, but they persist in harassing the "hater" (who just wants to be left alone) and never let it drop. What do you do then?

You fire the "haters" for creating a hostile work environment. Your hypothetical situations really wouldn't give a small child that much trouble. Why are they so hard for you?

But say, someone publishes a list with his name on it, showing that he contributes to those same traditional family groups as the owners of Chick-Fil-A? And then all of the other "enlightened" employees start harassing the "hater" such that your business is disrupted? What if you ask the "enlightened" ones to play nice, but they persist in harassing the "hater" (who just wants to be left alone) and never let it drop. What do you do then?

You fire the "haters" for creating a hostile work environment. Your hypothetical situations really wouldn't give a small child that much trouble. Why are they so hard for you?

I'm glad these issues are so clear to you. I'm a little slow, I admit. So, if you don't mind....

By "haters" do you you mean the guy who supports groups opposed to same sex marriage? Or the guys harassing him because they found his name on the list?

But say, someone publishes a list with his name on it, showing that he contributes to those same traditional family groups as the owners of Chick-Fil-A? And then all of the other "enlightened" employees start harassing the "hater" such that your business is disrupted? What if you ask the "enlightened" ones to play nice, but they persist in harassing the "hater" (who just wants to be left alone) and never let it drop. What do you do then?

You fire the "haters" for creating a hostile work environment. Your hypothetical situations really wouldn't give a small child that much trouble. Why are they so hard for you?

I'm glad these issues are so clear to you. I'm a little slow, I admit. So, if you don't mind....

By "haters" do you you mean the guy who supports groups opposed to same sex marriage? Or the guys harassing him because they found his name on the list?

I'm trying really hard not to use insulting words but when I said "for creating a hostile work environment" did you think I was talking about the "good employee and never discusses politics or controversial issues at work" or "the other "enlightened" employees (that) start harassing the "hater" such that your business is disrupted?"

[Robin Garr]

By "haters" do you you mean the guy who supports groups opposed to same sex marriage?

That's pretty much self-defining, since respected organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center have categorized most of those groups as "hate groups." If you support a hate group, that sort of makes you a hater, I'd say.

Or the guys harassing him because they found his name on the list?

Edmund Burke said, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing." Are you seriously suggesting that membership in, and support of, hate groups should be allowed to pass without resistance? Would you speak up if you knew a fellow worker was a robe-wearing member of the Klan?

I'm trying really hard not to use insulting words

Thank you.

but when I said "for creating a hostile work environment" did you think I was talking about the "good employee and never discusses politics or controversial issues at work" or "the other "enlightened" employees (that) start harassing the "hater" such that your business is disrupted?"

The reason I was confused is because you've reversed the terminology used consistently in this thread. The term "hate" and "haters" is reserved for those opposed to same sex marriage.

I will not assume to speak for others but for me it boils down to this...
You may associate with whom you choose, like or dislike whomever you wish. You MAY NOT spend millions of dollars to buy votes to keep others from enjoying a lifestyle that does not even effect you in the least. What Is your problem with gay marriage? How does it harm you? It would seem most people would love to see others involved in a lasting, loving relationship. And if they are, shouldn't they be allowed the same rights as other married couples? Again, what is the problem what is the problem what is the problem?

By "haters" do you you mean the guy who supports groups opposed to same sex marriage?

That's pretty much self-defining, since respected organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center have categorized most of those groups as "hate groups." If you support a hate group, that sort of makes you a hater, I'd say.

I reject that those opposed to same sex marriage are hate groups. Perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center is the hate group for not allowing for honest political disagreement without resorting to calling their opponents hate groups.

Or the guys harassing him because they found his name on the list?

Edmund Burke said, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing." Are you seriously suggesting that membership in, and support of, hate groups should be allowed to pass without resistance? Would you speak up if you knew a fellow worker was a robe-wearing member of the Klan?

We've had Nazis, so now opposing some sex marriage is the same thing as lynching?

[Robin Garr]

We've had Nazis, so now opposing some sex marriage is the same thing as lynching?

Steve, with all respect, your consistent resort to rhetorical fallacy makes debating these issues an exercise in repetitive frustration. I'm outtahere.

No one starts the ball rolling with a lynching or a death in the gas chamber. They get the ball rolling by first segregating that "dreaded" portion of the population and denying them their basic human rights. Like marrying or simply sitting with a loved one while they die in a hospital. They deny them employment or the right to live where they choose. These are all things denied homosexuals in various areas of our nation today. And I bet you know that. And it would seem you approve of that.

We've had Nazis, so now opposing some sex marriage is the same thing as lynching?

Steve, with all respect, your consistent resort to rhetorical fallacy makes debating these issues an exercise in repetitive frustration. I'm outtahere.

I can appreciate how tiring it is to keep arguing this point. But as a proud mother of a bisexual child I will continue to address this subject every time it arises. I will fight for my child's rights endlessly. I refuse to sit back and allow a free pass to those that would deny this segment of the population basic human rights .

I will not assume to speak for others but for me it boils down to this...
You may associate with whom you choose, like or dislike whomever you wish. You MAY NOT spend millions of dollars to buy votes to keep others from enjoying a lifestyle that does not even effect you in the least.

So, they have no right to petition their government for redress? It's okay to spend millions to support same sex marriage? But, it's not okay to spend millions opposing it? Who gets to decide which causes are okay? And which ones are hate?

What Is your problem with gay marriage?

Where have I given the impression that I have a problem with gay marriage?

How does it harm you?

Well, suppose you ask that question to those opposed to same sex marriage, and try to understand their reasons instead of just calling them haters and proposing the abolition of their political rights?

It would seem most people would love to see others involved in a lasting, loving relationship. And if they are, shouldn't they be allowed the same rights as other married couples? Again, what is the problem what is the problem what is the problem?

Remember when the fashion on the left was all about the "piece of paper" not meaning anything?

Marriage was so squaresville, man! Free love forever!

Now, the same folks are saying that it is a critical civil right to give everyone, regardless of gender, access to the same meaningless "piece of paper". My response is, knock yourselves out. Free love. Tax shelter marriages. Whatever makes you happy. I'm pretty libertarian about the whole situation.

My thinking is that heteros are the ones that have degraded what was once the solemn institution of marriage in this country. "Teh Gays" didn't really have anything to do with it. At this point, it's just a tax shelter; so yeah, go ahead and let them in the club.

The funny thing is, that 15-20 years ago, no one was talking about this critical civil right. It's almost like it was invented for political reasons so folks could keep on hating the right people.

We've had Nazis, so now opposing some sex marriage is the same thing as lynching?

Steve, with all respect, your consistent resort to rhetorical fallacy makes debating these issues an exercise in repetitive frustration. I'm outtahere.

You are the one who brought in the Klan equivalence. Did you mean something else?


Besides, you keep starting these threads. Why do you do it? To get an "Amen" chorus?