Chic-Fil-A whats going on here?

N Sperlo wrote:

KATYB wrote: legal rights lgbt people should have but dont. 1: the right to marry the person we love and enjoy the legal benefits of such a marriage 2: legal protection from discrimination and harasment in the workplace and for housing 3: The legal protection to not be denyed medical care. personally i dont think we are asking for anything extravagant.

THAT is equality.

THAT is a theoretical, which some people would not find to be equal.

But ALL people have the right to discuss and vote on in the public forum.

N Sperlo wrote:

KATYB wrote: legal rights lgbt people should have but dont. 1: the right to marry the person we love and enjoy the legal benefits of such a marriage 2: legal protection from discrimination and harasment in the workplace and for housing 3: The legal protection to not be denyed medical care. personally i dont think we are asking for anything extravagant.

THAT is equality.

yep which we dont have not right. and have ass hats like mr chickfila stopping us from getting it.

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Let's put this another way...... If the mayors of Boston, chicago and councilmen from San Fran were blocking a restraunt owned by a LBGT person, what would we say? Its the same thing, buton the other shoe. They are discriminating based on sexual preference and that is just as wrong legally and morally as it is the other way.

It's not the same thing. The "same thing" would be if the CEO of a national scale gay-owned business came out in opposition to straight marriage and refused to hire openly straight people. If that happened, you can bet there would be a lot of whining.

It is the same thing.

Oh! I'm convinced! Great argument!

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Let's put this another way...... If the mayors of Boston, chicago and councilmen from San Fran were blocking a restraunt owned by a LBGT person, what would we say? Its the same thing, buton the other shoe. They are discriminating based on sexual preference and that is just as wrong legally and morally as it is the other way.

It's not the same thing. The "same thing" would be if the CEO of a national scale gay-owned business came out in opposition to straight marriage and refused to hire openly straight people. If that happened, you can bet there would be a lot of whining.

It is the same thing.

Oh! I'm convinced! Great argument!

Stop being childish. Go back and read what I had to add since it posted before I was ready for it to.

In reply to orphancars:

CFA is not pushing an agenda. They are investing their profits as they see fit in the things they believe in.

EXACTLY like ALL companies do.

People can choose to buy their product or not. It is wrong for the government to try to block their legal business operations based on the personal opinions of political leaders.

SVreX wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

KATYB wrote: legal rights lgbt people should have but dont. 1: the right to marry the person we love and enjoy the legal benefits of such a marriage 2: legal protection from discrimination and harasment in the workplace and for housing 3: The legal protection to not be denyed medical care. personally i dont think we are asking for anything extravagant.

THAT is equality.

THAT is a theoretical, which some people would not find to be equal. But ALL people have the right to discuss and vote on in the public forum.

I just don't see the logic in that. There are legal perks to being married. You should marry a person you love. Man, woman, who gives a berkeley?

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Let's put this another way...... If the mayors of Boston, chicago and councilmen from San Fran were blocking a restraunt owned by a LBGT person, what would we say? Its the same thing, buton the other shoe. They are discriminating based on sexual preference and that is just as wrong legally and morally as it is the other way.

It's not the same thing. The "same thing" would be if the CEO of a national scale gay-owned business came out in opposition to straight marriage and refused to hire openly straight people. If that happened, you can bet there would be a lot of whining.

It is the same thing.

Oh! I'm convinced! Great argument!

Stop being childish. Go back and read what I had to add since it posted before I was ready for it to.

Don't be rude, I was replying to what you posted.

I don't really have anything to add based on your post, it still isn't in any way equivalent in my mind. But moving along...

aircooled wrote:

scardeal wrote: ...The law discriminates about who can marry whom. You're not allowed to marry your siblings, your parent, or your own child. In most states, you're not allowed to marry an heir, adopted child, stepchild, etc. that is not of blood relation. You're not allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. You're not allowed to marry someone below a certain age. You're not allowed to marry someone who is incapable of understanding what marriage is..

Sorry to pick on your posts, but you provide the best reasonable "other side" to this argument, so I thank you for that. I think (as I think is a HUGE issue in this debate) you are confusing "marriage" with "having sex".

No, I'm not confusing marriage with having sex. When I got my civil marriage license in the state of Michigan, my wife and I had to sign legal statements saying at least the following (I don't remember the whole of it):

1. I'm not related physically to my future wife
2. I'm not related legally to my future wife
3. I'm not legally married to anyone else
4. I'm aware of and can fulfill the duties of marriage
5. I'm above a certain age (16, I think).

There was also some language about STDs as well.

Gimme my guns and don't you gays dare get married!

Oh, and you mayors better not say a damn thing about my company expanding your neighborhood...oh, and those taliban better not be building no islamo-church in my neighborhood!

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Let's put this another way...... If the mayors of Boston, chicago and councilmen from San Fran were blocking a restraunt owned by a LBGT person, what would we say? Its the same thing, buton the other shoe. They are discriminating based on sexual preference and that is just as wrong legally and morally as it is the other way.

It's not the same thing. The "same thing" would be if the CEO of a national scale gay-owned business came out in opposition to straight marriage and refused to hire openly straight people. If that happened, you can bet there would be a lot of whining.

It is the same thing.

Oh! I'm convinced! Great argument!

Stop being childish. Go back and read what I had to add since it posted before I was ready for it to.

Don't be rude, I was replying to what you posted. I don't really have anything to add based on your post, it still isn't in any way equivalent in my mind. But moving along...

So you're saying it's only discrimination if it's against a LGBT? That is the gist of your argument. Same argument I've heard about how white people cannot be discriminated against in a black neighborhood. Both are bullE36 M3.

KATYB wrote: yep which we dont have not right. and have ass hats like mr chickfila stopping us from getting it.

I think it is an enormous overstatement to suggest that Dan Cathy is single handedly stopping the gay agenda from proceeding.

I understand you have a strong (and mildly biased) opinion on this one.

But, so far, it is a majority of the voting public who has determined the direction of the laws of this country on this issue. Not Mr. Cathy.

I think the Chik-fil-a guy is a tool. Don't agree with him. I also think he can say what he likes. Free country. Mayor of Boston can say what he likes too. Mr. Fil-a has to pay for what he says if people chose not to go to his place to eat. People can do what they like. Mayor dude has to suffer any political fall out from what he says.

But that's kind of it. If Mr. Mayor dude tries to block a business based on what the COO said, that seems wrong and probably illegal. That is assuming that Chik-fil-a conforms to all aplicible laws.

If they're discriminating, taht's something else. But I haven't heard anyone accuse them of discriminatory practices of any kind.

It's worth looking at it another way- if someone who was the COO of a company came out against interatial marriage, for example, I'd guess it would raise more eye brows. A lot of people find what he said very similar to doing exactly that. Others don't. So people feel differently about it. But, even in that case, I don't know of any law that says you can't be a racist or that a racist can't own a company. There are laws that say they can't discriminate, but as long as they abide by those laws, God love them all the same.

If the people of Boston don't like what the guy said, they won't go to the store and it will go out of business. Problem solved. Or, they may not care what the COO said enough to influence that decision. It's up to individuals to do what they like.

I really feel your personal stance on homosexual marriage is immaterial. To me it is a Constitional rights question. Are constituntionally protected rights being violated and I think they are. Through enacting "civil unions" we have already decided that homosexual marriage is allowed. Quite a few states have created a "seperate but equal" term that affords all the rights and privelages on the state level that Marriage allows.

I think the US government should pass a law saying that immediatly all legally recognized "marriages" become Civil Unions which has a legal definition exactly equal to that of the traditional "marriage" but simply says between any two consenting individuals that otherwise don't violate any laws on Family relationship, Being of age or all the restrictions that are currently placed on traditional "marriage" less requireing Man/Woman.

Government should be out of the marriage game. Leave the term Marriage to the church. The relationship I have with my wife would not change with any word you use to describe it. The way we are going to raise or family will not be affected if there are Man-Man, Woman-Woman families out there.

My personal stance is I do not support gay marriage for me. I as you say voted with my wallet and married a Woman. That said I 100% do not feel it's my place to limit the ability of consenting individuals to enter into the legal arrangment that I have with my wife. The law cannot prevent Homosexuals from entering into the emotional or spiritual (if that's your thing) relationship like I have with my Wife. It's not like there are 100,000,000 people in families that "traditional marriage" defendors hold up as an inspiration that are simply in that relationship because they are addicted to Marriage and if they could get Married to a same sex partner they would immediatly divorce their oposite sex spouse and Gay up. This Errosion of Family values that everyone is "scared" of is just reality. There are gay people, there are straight people, some of these people are in committed wonderful loving relationships that provide wonderful examples of what love is to the world (Some of these people are gay some are straight), some of them are in horrible loveless relationships raising disfunctional unloved children (Some of these people are gay some are straight).

I guess long story short, Personally Although I'm not sure of my "moral" stance on Gay marriage I support Gay peoples right to get married and would support any legislation that would give them that right. I view nothing as more sacred that generating a loving relationship that can enrich the lives around you. If those people happen to be the same sex (like my Aunt and well Aunt) then I'm supportive of that.

N Sperlo wrote:

SVreX wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

KATYB wrote: legal rights lgbt people should have but dont. 1: the right to marry the person we love and enjoy the legal benefits of such a marriage 2: legal protection from discrimination and harasment in the workplace and for housing 3: The legal protection to not be denyed medical care. personally i dont think we are asking for anything extravagant.

THAT is equality.

THAT is a theoretical, which some people would not find to be equal. But ALL people have the right to discuss and vote on in the public forum.

I just don't see the logic in that. There are legal perks to being married. You should marry a person you love. Man, woman, who gives a berkeley?

You have the right to a different opinion than the law currently allows, and the right to petition your government to change the laws.

The easy answer to all this is to not have state sanctioned marriage period. Everyone wants "separation of church and state," a statement that is misconstrued and misquoted every time someone exercises their 1st amendment right of freedom of religion. Ok get the state out of something that was started and officiated over by the church. And get me some damn waffle fries.

scardeal wrote: No, I'm not confusing marriage with having sex. When I got my civil marriage license in the state of Michigan.....

I was referring to you. I am not saying the State doesn't do that also. Clearly it is, that is the problem. Otherwise, there is no issue with the other types of marriages I mentioned. I will include the state and say no one should. What business is it of theirs?

Of course, there are also laws on the books about sodomy. Which, to me, is absurd. If you are worried about a prison type situation, well, that is bad, but of course there are already laws about rape, so no need. A law against sodomy is effectively like a law against kissing, not sure many would agree with that one. Forecable kissing... that's (sexual?) assault.

In reply to SVreX: Oh yeah, no argument. But to me it seriously makes no sense that it is theoretical. It makes me

Curmudgeon wrote:

SVreX wrote: But at no point did he have a permit for a restaraunt denied over those opinions. Does thast mean that perhaps the city government of Columbia, SC, heart of the intolerant Bible Belt, is actually more progressive (gasp) than the governments of such progressive cities as Boston and Chicago? Oh, say it ain't so!

Actually it worse than that Curmudgeon. The main restaurant where all the BBQ and sauce are prepared store is in West Columbia, not the big citified sophisticated Columbia.

In reply to aircooled:

depends on what you're kissing

I'm staying off the pipeline on that one. Possible charges are complicated.

Wow! A little controversy is great for business.

I just came back from having my first CFA meal in over a decade and the place was PACKED!

The food wasn't a dry and tasteless as I remembered. The spicy chicken sandwich with a little hot wings sauce was pretty good!

And like someone else said, the waffle fries rock!

I made it a point to talk to the manager and explain that we were there totally because of the controversy and that we were proud of them for putting their pocketbooks where their mouths were. He said that the support had been overwhelming!!

And here's the bottom line, the actions of the officials in question is blatantly ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter their reasoning, it's illegal.

BTW August 1st is the official Show your support for CFA day and we are all supposed to go there to eat. I'm betting that you WILL have trouble refilling your drinks on that day as the lines will be long.

And have you read what all the fuss is about or are you just reacting to the posts on this thread? I wouldn't call this Gay Bashing by any stretch of the imagination.

"Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, is a self-described Christian businessman, who proudly runs his fast food chain according to his own vision of Christian principles. His stores close on Sundays, for instance, and the company gives money to non-profits that support limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman. A couple weeks ago, Cathy explained this in an interview with the Baptist Press. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” he said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

For this reason, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has urged Chick-fil-A to “back out” of its “plans to locate in Boston.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says Chick-fil-A has no place in the city of Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

No evidence has been presented to suggest that Chick-fil-A discriminates against gay or lesbian customers or employees. There is nothing to suggest that the company has broken the law in any other way. In his comments to the Baptist Press, Cathy did not even mention same-sex marriage. He simply said he and his company supported traditional marriage. The only issue at play is the personal view of the owner of the restaurant chain, and the philanthropic efforts of the private company.

A recent poll in Massachusetts found that 30% of the state believes same-sex marriage should be illegal. In the Chicago area, 42% of residents support same-sex marriage, and 42% oppose same-sex marriage. (Indeed, Emanuel’s depiction of “Chicago values” is misleading; the city is divided on the issue of marriage.)

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/26/chick-fil-a-meets-a-first-amendment-buzzsaw-in-chicago/#ixzz21ku112l8

SVreX wrote: But, so far, it is a majority of the voting public who has determined the direction of the laws of this country on this issue.

This is factually correct but the voting majority doesn't have final authority in all matters.

Desegregation was wildly unpopular in the south and wouldn't have happened if it had been up to the majority of the voting public.

I see a number of parallels between the same-sex marriage issue and the civil rights movement, and I suspect our grandkids will look back at our time and scratch their heads, wondering 'what were they thinking?'

scardeal wrote: It's impossible not to discriminate. The question is whether it's just to make a certain discrimination. The law discriminates about who can marry whom. You're not allowed to marry your siblings, your parent, or your own child. In most states, you're not allowed to marry an heir, adopted child, stepchild, etc. that is not of blood relation. You're not allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. You're not allowed to marry someone below a certain age. You're not allowed to marry someone who is incapable of understanding what marriage is. Do you agree that any of the above limitations protect either the persons or society?

You are not allowed to marry in some of those situations because in some of those situations the parties are not/ cannot be consenting parties. IMHO you should be able to marry who you want if all involved are consenting adults.

bludroptop wrote:

SVreX wrote: But, so far, it is a majority of the voting public who has determined the direction of the laws of this country on this issue.

This is factually correct but the voting majority doesn't have final authority in all matters.

The thing is the majority of people know support the gay and lesbian marriage...

nocones

That makes entirely too much sense and has been exactly my opinion for quite a while.

SVreX wrote: In reply to orphancars: CFA is not pushing an agenda. They are investing their profits as they see fit in the things they believe in. EXACTLY like ALL companies do. People can choose to buy their product or not. It is wrong for the government to try to block their legal business operations based on the personal opinions of political leaders.

While I disagree that CFA is "not pushing an agenda" - they most assuredly are - they are within their rights to do so. I quit ordering Domino's pizza when I found out about Donahue's huge financial support of anti-choice organizations, but I bever lobbied to stop them from opening new stores.

I fully agree that it is wrong for the government to block a legal business operation and misuse executive power. If that actually happens in Boston, or elsewhere, it will be an issue. At the moment, all this is just a memo on official letterhead saying "Boston isn't like that". If it develops that Boston moves to officially block the development based on this issue, I hope CFA's counsel goes to afterburners.