Chick-fil-a Support Day and Free Speech

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

But, since homosexuality has been turned into a 'hot button' political issue

Bless your heart.

Homosexuality isn't a political issue at all. The political issue comes into play when people like you see homosexuals as second class citizens not worthy of equal protection of rights as heterosexual citizens. Your statements about how a white homosexual male could never be as oppressed as you is quite bold as well. In all seriousness, how the hell do you know? Everyone's journey is different in life and not everyone can "hide under the radar" like you assume they can or even choose to do. I really don't want to get into the Oppression Olympics here but I personally have gay friends that have been disowned from their families, have been forced out of their careers, have been arrested, have been gay-bashed so bad that they were hospitalized all based solely on their sexuality so your comment about how none of these individuals know oppression really ANNOYS me.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Kinda, sorta no.

What people do in their lives is their business. But, since homosexuality has been turned into a 'hot button' political issue, it is not unreasonable for people to take sides.

Christianity is very deeply rooted in this country. And, in Christianity homosexuality is seen as sinful, along with other acts. So, if you ask me as a Christian, do I have a problem with gays, then yes I do because it does go against the Bible. I strive to live as close to God's word as possible.

But, I'm also wise enough to recognize that not everyone is a Christian. I'm also wise enough to know that people have the right to their own beliefs even though they differ from mine. So, in that respect, then I say live and let live.

Personally, I'm heterosexual. So for me it is hard to comprehend being attracted to someone of the same sex.

If someone says they are not in support of gay marriage, as marriage defined by the Bible, then they have every right to express that openly in the same way that someone would express the opposite view.

Going back to the original point of this thread - I think if the CEO of CFA was not the CEO, but some random guy, then this would not make news. The reason this made news, IMO, is because this was said by someone who runs a multi-billion dollar company. Gays are seen as a political group that exercises its power and influence (read money). So, the idea of someone offending a political group like that ruffled feathers. Bottom line - money is involved. If money was not involved then I don't think anyone would care. Gay, or not.

The problem is that many people who are Christian are politically forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of the country, and that is what is unacceptable. There has never been one statement, fact, or reason to deny two consenting unrelated adults of the same sex/gender a marriage that doesn't come down to religion, and this is the core of the whole problem and why people are mad about the money donated by ChikFilH8 to influence politics and deny human rights while furthering their Christian beliefs. I'm getting tired that Freedom of Religion is an argument for interfering with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment by depriving people of equal rights. It wasn't okay with Loving v. Virginia 45 years ago, and it isn't okay now either.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

The problem is that many people who are Christian are politically forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of the country, and that is what is unacceptable.

This has been happening since Europeans first arrived in this country, so that is nothing new.

There has never been one statement, fact, or reason to deny two consenting unrelated adults of the same sex/gender a marriage that doesn't come down to religion, and this is the core of the whole problem and why people are mad about the money donated by ChikFilH8 to influence politics and deny human rights while furthering their Christian beliefs. I'm getting tired that Freedom of Religion is an argument for interfering with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment by depriving people of equal rights. It wasn't okay with Loving v. Virginia 45 years ago, and it isn't okay now either.

And the counterpoint to this is, if the CEO of CFA had come out with a statement completely opposite to what he actually said and decided to donate money to support gay marriage, then some people would still applaud him and others would still be angry.

Its his company. He feels that he can say what he wants about his company. For those who are not familiar with CFA, they are closed on Sundays for the sole purpose to allow their workers to go to church. So for him to come out with this statement should not be much of a surprise.

Also, what a person sees as 'equal rights' is very subjective. The best we can do is what we are doing now - present the issue and give the people the right to vote on that issue.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Also, what a person sees as 'equal rights' is very subjective. The best we can do is what we are doing now - present the issue and give the people the right to vote on that issue.

No. Letting the majority vote on the rights of the minority is not a good idea, and never has been.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

No. Letting the majority vote on the rights of the minority is not a good idea, and never has been.

Texas Democrats are currently very familiar with this situatuion. We live it everyday........

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Homosexuality isn't a political issue at all. The political issue comes into play when people like you see homosexuals as second class citizens not worthy of equal protection of rights as heterosexual citizens.

Considering gay marriage is now an issue on many state ballots, where one is asked to vote for or against it, then yeah, it got to be pretty political at that point.

Your statements about how a white homosexual male could never be as oppressed as you is quite bold as well. In all seriousness, how the hell do you know? Everyone's journey is different in life and not everyone can "hide under the radar" like you assume they can or even choose to do. I really don't want to get into the Oppression Olympics here but I personally have gay friends that have been disowned from their families, have been forced out of their careers, have been arrested, have been gay-bashed so bad that they were hospitalized all based solely on their sexuality so your comment about how none of these individuals know oppression really ANNOYS me.

It has been a while since I had to take a US history and US government class, but as far as I remember, I never read or came across any moment in US history from the early - mid 1600's to today, where gays were forced into servitude just because they were gay. Nor do I recall any law needing to be passed to allows gays the right to vote because they were denied the right to vote simply because they are gay.

I agree with you on what you said above. Those are examples of oppression. But, when I see White gays hold up banners with pictures from the 1960's Black Civil Rights Movement trying to proclaim that they have suffered the same fate, that I don't buy.

I'm not saying that there have not, and are not, clear instances where someone has been oppressed simply because they are gay. What I'm saying is there has never been in the history of this Nation such a systematic and at a period of time forced by law, oppression of gays to the same extent experienced by Black people in this country.

[AlphaFrog]

So systematic oppression is the only oppression that makes you officially oppressed?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

So systematic oppression is the only oppression that makes you officially oppressed?

No. As I've said, my issue comes when White gays try to use images and similarities to the Black Civil Rights Movement as a foundation to push forward their agenda.

I just don't see the two as being the same level, extent, degree of oppression.

[NutBrnHair]

I will continue to eat at Chick-fil-A from time to time, but I definitely didn't want to support them yesterday.

[DrPhil]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...l-experts-say/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=16912978

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...from-huckabee/

I do not know whether a "kiss in" makes much sense but, if it happens, I hope it is peaceful and not obnoxious. I don't want to see a bunch of people sitting around kissing, heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe same-sex married couples should peacefully go to Chick-Fil-A and have some waffle fries. Perhaps that does not make sense either--a boycott may make the most sense. LOL.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...l-experts-say/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=16912978

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...from-huckabee/

I do not know whether a "kiss in" makes much sense but, if it happens, I hope it is peaceful and not obnoxious. I don't want to see a bunch of people sitting around kissing, heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe same-sex married couples should peacefully go to Chick-Fil-A and have some waffle fries. Perhaps that does not make sense either--a boycott may make the most sense. LOL.

Yeah, I think a Kiss-in would not go over so well in the South.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...l-experts-say/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=16912978

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...from-huckabee/

I do not know whether a "kiss in" makes much sense but, if it happens, I hope it is peaceful and not obnoxious. I don't want to see a bunch of people sitting around kissing, heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe same-sex married couples should peacefully go to Chick-Fil-A and have some waffle fries. Perhaps that does not make sense either--a boycott may make the most sense. LOL.

I'm probably way too cynical about the motivation here, but I think that some of the kiss-in advocates are hoping for a really hostile reaction which they will then be able to publicize as evidence of Chick-fil-a's homophobia.

Generally, I don't expect that to be the outcome. I think you'll get 99% + Chick-fil-a personnel AND customers behaving fine.

But I'm a little concerned about idiotic members of the public deciding that this is their chance to get some attention and then efforts being made to suggest that those idiots are representative of Chick-fil-a somehow.

Even if there are some confrontations that get a lot of media play, I doubt it helps same sex marriage advocates much.

ETA: I understand not wanting to increase Chick-fil-a profits that then go to Winshape and through Winshape to groups that support heterosexual families over same sex families. But it would almost seem to me that if you expect a Chick-fil-a boycott to be effective somehow beyond just the initial awareness campaign, it would have made sense to have a Friends of Same Sex Marriage Chick-fil-a Day before you started the boycott. That way you could demonstrate the level of support that was likely to be withdrawn, and local operators could appreciate how many people they know would prefer Chick-fil-a back off the issue. Who knows if it would really matter? But it just seems like a better way to achieve long term ends than seeming to instigate a lot of polarizing rhetoric.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm probably way too cynical about the motivation here, but I think that some of the kiss-in advocates are hoping for a really hostile reaction which they will then be able to publicize as evidence of Chick-fil-a's homophobia.

Generally, I don't expect that to be the outcome. I think you'll get 99% + Chick-fil-a personnel AND customers behaving fine.

But I'm a little concerned about idiotic members of the public deciding that this is their chance to get some attention and then efforts being made to suggest that those idiots are representative of Chick-fil-a somehow.

Even if there are some confrontations that get a lot of media play, I doubt it helps same sex marriage advocates much.

ETA: I understand not wanting to increase Chick-fil-a profits that then go to Winshape and through Winshape to groups that support heterosexual families over same sex families. But it would almost seem to me that if you expect a Chick-fil-a boycott to be effective somehow beyond just the initial awareness campaign, it would have made sense to have a Friends of Same Sex Marriage Chick-fil-a Day before you started the boycott. That way you could demonstrate the level of support that was likely to be withdrawn, and local operators could appreciate how many people they know would prefer Chick-fil-a back off the issue. Who knows if it would really matter? But it just seems like a better way to achieve long term ends than seeming to instigate a lot of polarizing rhetoric.

I don't think having a day set aside to give more money to a company you oppose would be an effective way to decrease the amount of money they have to give to the charities and hate groups that are at the center of this controversy.