Chic-Fil-A whats going on here?

Can the Mayor of Boston deny/block a building permit for CFA? Probably not, but they can make it very difficult.

Recently WalMart wanted to build one of their superstores in a VA suburb of DC. Local people did not want it in their area. Result - local ordinance was passed limiting size of stores to quite a bit less than the typical WalMart superstore.

Also just last night: Costco is building store in a northern DC suburb. Plans were to include one of their mega-gas staions. Local people don't want the mega gas station. Local ordinance written: No gas station can have more than XXX pumps within YYY feet of ZZZ. (don't have all the details since it was just a news blurb last night)

If I were the CEO of CFA I would take the mayors letter as a hint and stay away form Boston.

Personally I think the CEO of CFA is a jackass for several reasons. First I don't agree with his views, secondly he is stupid for expressing them in a way that might negatively affect the business.

But most importantly I despise him and all the other radicals on both the left and right who are trying to polarize the American people into groups who must be at odds with each other all the time. That is not the concept of America that I was taught and grew up with.

To those "why should the government recognize marriage at all" folks:

If marriage provides little to no social value (economic value, social stability, likelihood of criminal behavior, etc.) above cohabiting couples, single-parent households, or same sex unions, then I would actually agree with you. If it is a purely religious construct with no inherent value to society, then it should be no different, legally, than living with a roommate.

On the other hand, if the family is the basic building block of society, and children growing up under married parents are better educated, less likely to commit crime, more likely to exist to become taxpayers, and the parents are less likely to be social deviants, etc. by the mere fact of being married, then marriage sounds like it's absolutely fundamental to the fabric of society. Thus, society would have every incentive to support marriage.

Am I the only one who read the thread title as "What the Chick-Fil-A is going on here?"

Chick-Fil-A. It's the new berkeley.

At least CFA is taking the high road-

scardeal wrote: To those "why should the government recognize marriage at all" folks: If marriage provides little to no social value (economic value, social stability, likelihood of criminal behavior, etc.) above cohabiting couples, single-parent households, or same sex unions, then I would actually agree with you. If it is a purely religious construct with no inherent value to society, then it should be no different, legally, than living with a roommate. On the other hand, if the family is the basic building block of society, and children growing up under married parents are better educated, less likely to commit crime, more likely to exist to become taxpayers, and the parents are less likely to be social deviants, etc. by the mere fact of being married, then marriage sounds like it's absolutely fundamental to the fabric of society. And society has every incentive to support marriage. I believe this to be absolutely true.

I agree completely. Which is why I can't possibly see a reason to deny that advantage to ANY consenting adults who wish to create that kind of stabilizing, nurturing environment.

scardeal wrote: To those "why should the government recognize marriage at all" folks: If marriage provides little to no social value (economic value, social stability, likelihood of criminal behavior, etc.) above cohabiting couples, single-parent households, or same sex unions, then I would actually agree with you. If it is a purely religious construct with no inherent value to society, then it should be no different, legally, than living with a roommate. On the other hand, if the family is the basic building block of society, and children growing up under married parents are better educated, less likely to commit crime, more likely to exist to become taxpayers, and the parents are less likely to be social deviants, etc. by the mere fact of being married, then marriage sounds like it's absolutely fundamental to the fabric of society. Thus, society would have every incentive to support marriage.

Yes most studies show that kids that are raised in two parents households are better off but there have been plenty of studies that show that kids raised in two parent households where both the parents are of the same sex are just as well off and the only downside is suffering from the homophobia of other people.

93EXCivic wrote: The thing is the majority of people know support the gay and lesbian marriage...

This is the truth, I know even more who would be happy if it was passed just to not hear about it in the news anymore(like me)

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. 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?'

And this is why the Founding Fathers created a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

93EXCivic wrote: Yes most studies show that kids that are raised in two parents households are better off but there have been plenty of studies that show that kids raised in two parent households where both the parents are of the same sex are just as well off and the only downside is suffering from the homophobia of other people.

There I just wanted to raise the point that society (aka, all of us) has a vested interest in encouraging intact marriages, independent of any religious factors.

Hal wrote: But most importantly I despise him and all the other radicals on both the left and right who are trying to polarize the American people into groups who must be at odds with each other all the time. That is not the concept of America that I was taught and grew up with.

/thread

Cone_Junky wrote: At least CFA is taking the high road-

It's funny that they are blatantly lying about this.

z31maniac wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: At least CFA is taking the high road-

It's funny that they are blatantly lying about this.

But christians would never LIE!

Bobzilla wrote: 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.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Read your post, read mine, I can't make it any clearer. Maybe I'm not able to express it clearly enough or don't care enough to argue pointlessly. But that isn't what I said and isn't what I believe.

Cone_Junky wrote: At least CFA is taking the high road-

Well, you know Bert and Ernie....

As usual, the Onion nails it -

Chick-Fil-A Debuts New Homophobic Sandwich 'Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu' Goes On Sale Wednesday 03.02.09 ATLANTA—As part of its recent efforts to publicly align itself with fundamentalist Christian values, the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain announced today the debut of its new Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu sandwich that would be on sale in all of the company's 1,600 restaurants this Wednesday. In a press conference to reporters, company representatives said the homophobic new sandwich will include the national fast food chain’s trademark fried chicken filet wrapped in a piece of specially-smoked No Homo ham that would be topped with a slice of Swiss cheese and lathered in a creamy new Thousand Island-based Fag Punching sauce. "The Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu is our company's way of showing our firm commitment to strong, Christian family values," said Chick-fil-A spokesman Robert Gary, before adding that the vehemently anti-gay rights sandwich comes served in a combo with waffle fries and a medium soda for just $6.95. "From the very first morsel of this savory meal to the very last bite, customers can envision gays burning in hell with their sodomizing cohorts, and know that our sandwich is on their side.” "Of course, the young ones will want to finish their meals off right with a No Fudge Packin' Soft Serve Cone," Gary added. "I can't think of a better way to follow up a sandwich this good." While the release of the Queer-Hatin’ Cordon Bleu has led to anger from pro-gay rights groups, loyal Chick-fil-A customers claim they are happy they can finally enjoy a sandwich that takes a firm stance on the issue of homosexuality. "Any sandwich that combines that great Chick-fil-A flavor with a hefty dose of vitriolic homophobia is definitely going to keep me coming back for more," said Atlanta customer John Oaks. “Come Wednesday, I’m going to be first in line for this thing.” According to sources, the Queer-Hatin’ Cordon Bleu is merely the first of Chick-fil-A’s new family values menu which is set to include the AIDS Is God’s Curse chicken nugget combo and the Fags Caused 9/11 strawberry fruit smoothie.

scardeal wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Yes most studies show that kids that are raised in two parents households are better off but there have been plenty of studies that show that kids raised in two parent households where both the parents are of the same sex are just as well off and the only downside is suffering from the homophobia of other people.

I just wanted to raise the point that society (aka, all of us) has a vested interest in encouraging intact marriages, independent of any religious factors.

I think he wanted to clear that up because we all are pretty sure your definition of Marriage does not include same sex couples. I think Most of society agrees with your benifits of marriage. I know I do. That said I feel that those benifits to society still exist when Mom and Dad in the family are in fact Dad and Dad or Mom and Mom.

Do you not feel this is the case? Do you feel that same sex couples are incapable of raising balanced contributing members of society and providing strong stable pillars of comunity?

In reply to z31maniac:

Although few will admit it, many of us have had our fingers stuck in Ms. Piggy before

For those that don't know what the recall of the puppet toys is about:

Chick-fil-A Recalls Jim Henson Company Toys Amid Gay Marriage Squabble

This shouldn't divulge into a gay marriage debate, this should be more about does government have the ability to represent the interests of its citizenry?

Why would any group want marriage to be recognized for them since statistics say marriage doesn't work with over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce.

More people are "living in sin" than there are married couples so what possible reason could a group want the sanctioning off an official title?

It's for the bennies!

One of our very best long time friends are an old "married" gay couple. Their complaints don't center upon the fact they can't legally be called married because they see themselves as married, but they complain about insurance (both health & life) and govt. benefits such as S.S. and survivors rights, etc. It would be cheaper for them if they could legally be on the same health insurance policy.

Why are many opposed to gay marriages, it's not that they hate gays, it's the complicated & costly bundle of laws, rules and monetary costs that would result. We are talking billions of dollars to sort out and inherent long term costs. Now someone will say I'm against gays because of the money, but that's not it. In this case I'm concerned because of the illegal actions of elected officials.

Has anyone given any thought to the fact that since this is an election year all this might be an election year stunt like Obama suddenly changing his position on gay marriages or amnesty for the kids of illegals? What do you want to bet that after the election, should he get reelected, his actions won't back up his words? Same thing for these guys. Publicity is publicity!

I'm a Christian and I don't hate gays. You wouldn't believe how many of my friends are gay or lesbian, that just comes with the territory when you hang out in a "creative crowd". None of us care about anyone's sexual preference, we care only about do we like each other as friends, do you have my back and do we have the same basic likes and dislikes.

And then there's the minor problem of how do you prove you are gay? 2 people of the same sex could just say they are married to get the extra monies. There are just so many ways to bilk the system and cost us even more.

Now what was that comedy about 2 fireman that lived together and wanted people to think they were gay when they weren't? Now why was it they wanted people to think they were gay?

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: 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.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Read your post, read mine, I can't make it any clearer. Maybe I'm not able to express it clearly enough or don't care enough to argue pointlessly. But that isn't what I said and isn't what I believe.

That's exactly what you're saying. Here's what I'm saying:

Telling someone that doesn't believe in gay marriage (also known to be in a straight relationship) that they cannot open a business because they believe in straight relationships is the same as telling a gay person they can't open a business because they believe in gay relationships.

It's still sexual discrimination. It's just not in the way it is typically seen up to this point. Same as my comment about black on white racism. It's still racism.

Does anyone find it peculiar that our most respected political spokespersons are Hollywood entertainers and fast food CEOs?

In reply to Mitchell:

If Brad Pitt and his mom disagree on this so vehemently, what are the rest of us to do?

carguy123 wrote: And then there's the minor problem of how do you prove you are gay? 2 people of the same sex could just say they are married to get the extra monies. There are just so many ways to bilk the system and cost us even more.

How many straight folks do you know who are married just so they can go bang other people and still benefit financially? Very few.

Could you exploit marriage for financial benefit? Sure, lots of people do, we call them gold diggers.

Mayor Menino said: Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino repeated today that he doesn’t want Chick-fil-A in Boston, but he backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city. “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage. The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”