Chick-Fil-A under fire again

[Robin Garr]

Is this even conceivable?

Not really.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/n ... n-scholars

[Robin Garr]

Also:

Is it remotely possible that folks who oppose same sex marriage have valid reasons and concerns,

Fails for lack of relevance. This article is about single-parent households, race and poverty (which is Jason DeParle's beat) and doesn't have a thing to do with same-sex marriage. In fact, by definition, a gay couple would provide a two-parent family. Seems the haters should be happy about that.

Now resuming the regularly scheduled 2-minute hate session..

Evoking "1984" for snark falls under the same general rubric as a Godwin's Law violation.

Is this even conceivable?

Not really.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/n ... n-scholars

You and they suffer from a supreme lack of empathy. It's impossible to grant the possibility of honest disagreement and fall back on easy assumptions of hate and ill will.

Also:

Is it remotely possible that folks who oppose same sex marriage have valid reasons and concerns,

Fails for lack of relevance.

So says you. I included that link because it was timely, and it shows the value of traditional families.

This article is about single-parent households, race and poverty (which is Jason DeParle's beat) and doesn't have a thing to do with same-sex marriage. In fact, by definition, a gay couple would provide a two-parent family.

Uh... Maybe Not. I'm not making an assertion of truth, just that there is evidence both ways.

Seems the haters should be happy about that.

See. You can't even concede that there's room for honest disagreement. Can you explain why always jumping to the "hater" explanation doesn't make you a "hater"? It's at least intellectually lazy.

Now resuming the regularly scheduled 2-minute hate session..

Evoking "1984" for snark falls under the same general rubric as a Godwin's Law violation.

I grant it was a little snarky. But it's honestly what comes to mind when reading through threads like this, e.g. everybody jumping in to agree how awful "those" people are.

[Robin Garr]

I grant it was a little snarky. But it's honestly what I think of when a read through threads like this, where everybody jumps in to agree how awful "those" people are.

I'm sorry, but I see this as consistent with the battles fought by blacks and women in their turn, and I can't stand silently when I hear what I consider to be pushback against "the arc of justice bending toward freedom."

Ok.

Now resuming the regularly scheduled 2-minute hate session..

The only arguments regularly presented against same sex marriages seem to be biblical. As I am all for religious freedom I could allow that argument but those individuals so concerned about evoking God's law conviently ignore the rest of the Jewish law covenant. Do they eat shellfish? Pork? Wear polyester/cotton blend clothes? No, I am sorry but you are not allowed to cherry pick which laws you think need to be followed and which laws can be ignored for the sake of your convience.

And as far as going on and on about the laws of nature, I guess I better get my old biology books out and start posting about other species that share homosexual/bisexual/transsexual tendencies. Let's face it, there are no good reasons to deny marriage to same sex couples.

George W. Bush, the worst president the US has ever had

Insanely off-topic, but over Wilson? Same military philosophy, but Wilson was openly racist in a way Bush wasnt. You can say lots of bad stuff about Bush, but I dont think he was a wilsonian racist. And it wasnt a "product of his time" type racism either, he actively reversed positive trends on that front.

I was going to say Harding, at least in the self serving agenda aspect. But let's not forget Andrew Johnson. He was as bad for America as Bush aspired to be.

relevant to the discussion is the following link

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=745199

stating that the Muppets have terminated their relationship with Chik over the gay marriage issue.

All other arguments and debates aside, I must say that I can't let The Grouch or Cookie Monster take the moral high road over me. So, good by chiki sammich.

He's a question....

Let's say you have an employee who is exemplary in every measure, and then you find out he advocates against same sex marriage. Should he be fired?

He's a question....

Let's say you have an employee who is exemplary in every measure, and then you find out he advocates against same sex marriage. Should he be fired?

Absolutely not. If you can't see the difference there's no helping you.

He's a question....

Let's say you have an employee who is exemplary in every measure, and then you find out he advocates against same sex marriage. Should he be fired?

Absolutely not. If you can't see the difference there's no helping you.

Care to elaborate? You may assume that you are talking with someone less obtuse than me.

He's a question....

Let's say you have an employee who is exemplary in every measure, and then you find out he advocates against same sex marriage. Should he be fired?

Absolutely not. If you can't see the difference there's no helping you.

Care to elaborate? You may assume that you are talking with someone less obtuse than me.

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.

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.

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