Chik-fil-A

[TheLeviathan]

So now we revoke business licenses when our politics disagree?

 

Seriously, how long until the lefties and righties start killing each other in the streets? This is so f-ing stupid.

[Badsmerf]

The stupidity of the whole issue boggles my mind.

[flpmagikat]

As far as I know they are still in business, so, what?

[Fatt Crapps]

What's all this crap I keep hearing about people wanting equal rights?

 

Is it really that big of a deal?

[DaveW]

There are two groups of people who look like idiots on this:

 

1. Politicians trying to use this to keep Chic Fil A out of cities and states- Just shut up and find something more important to do. If you want to keep out an evil company then stop letting them put up Walmarts every 2 miles and driving out tons of other businesses. It's fast food join run by idiots, if they want to build in your city let them. If people want to boycott it and they go out of business in your city then let that happen as well.

 

2. The only one who looks worse then some of the polticians are the brain dead yokels who decided to pilgrimage out to Chic Fil A the other day for the Chic Fil A appreciation day. If you are following anything Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin supports at this point you are the definition of a moron. Gay marriage is well on its way in this country, so people better just get used to it if they don't like it. Eating a 3000 calorie lunch on August 1st isn't going to change that. You just spent 2-3 hours waiting on a fast food chicken sandwich!

 

Personally I haven't eaten at a Chic Fil A in years, not bc of this, but because fast food in general is pretty awful for you. It has also been known for years that the CEO throws millions each year at anti gay marriage bills, groups etc. I am totally behind people "boycotting" it though, in fact I am for people boycotting any chain fast food joint.

 

IMO the "debate" about Gay Marriage is stupid to begin with, how anyone can be against it in this day of age is just mind boggling to me, but if there is a debate to be had about it, it shouldn't be centered around some fast food chicken joint and there crazy rich baptist CEO.

[TheLeviathan]

While not all of that post I endorse - I do endorse the core ideas by Dave. The lefts resction with the licenses was ridiculous ad was the christian rights response.

[fatbeer]

This is about the right giving the middle finger to the lefts proposed boycott. Of course it's time for gay marriage to be legal, the older generation on the right doesn't get that, but this is about so much more then one issue at this point. This is about saying were not only going to vote you jerks out of office in 96 days, but were gonna show you how powerful we can be just in case there is any confusion about what the election results mean. This is our country not Obama's not the media's not the so called moderates who are afraid to stand for something, and not the easily manipulated fools who will accept whatever some sports talk radio host says about politics. If the old people want to make gay marriage part of their fight fine, but they will not get in the way of us taking our country back.

 

By the way I know Obama said he supports gay marriage after Biden let his opinion slip, whats the president done to back up that lie? He opposes gay marriage more then any 6th district Republican.

[drjim]

This is about the right giving the middle finger to the lefts proposed boycott. Of course it's time for gay marriage to be legal, the older generation on the right doesn't get that, but this is about so much more then one issue at this point. This is about saying were not only going to vote you jerks out of office in 96 days, but were gonna show you how powerful we can be just in case there is any confusion about what the election results mean. This is our country not Obama's not the media's not the so called moderates who are afraid to stand for something, and not the easily manipulated fools who will accept whatever some sports talk radio host says about politics. If the old people want to make gay marriage part of their fight fine, but they will not get in the way of us taking our country back.

 

By the way I know Obama said he supports gay marriage after Biden let his opinion slip, whats the president done to back up that lie? He opposes gay marriage more then any 6th district Republican.

This is awesome on too many levels.

[flpmagikat]

This is about the right giving the middle finger to the lefts proposed boycott. Of course it's time for gay marriage to be legal, the older generation on the right doesn't get that, but this is about so much more then one issue at this point. This is about saying were not only going to vote you jerks out of office in 96 days, but were gonna show you how powerful we can be just in case there is any confusion about what the election results mean. This is our country not Obama's not the media's not the so called moderates who are afraid to stand for something, and not the easily manipulated fools who will accept whatever some sports talk radio host says about politics. If the old people want to make gay marriage part of their fight fine, but they will not get in the way of us taking our country back.

 

By the way I know Obama said he supports gay marriage after Biden let his opinion slip, whats the president done to back up that lie? He opposes gay marriage more then any 6th district Republican.

Do you really believe this? Any of it?

[TheLeviathan]

A we weak "moderates" how dare we not go blindly one way or the other! You know, despite what the blubbering walrus might say - you can have a strong opinion that falls between right and left-wing extremism. Shocking, I know.

 

That said, it is true that the Democrats are just vote pandering with gay marriage. It just bothers me that they are wielding the government's powers against people who have differing opinions on gay marriage. I don't think there has been adequate criticism of that abhorrent move.

[DJSim22]

The whole issue is ridiculous. And making this fuss probably only helps Chick-Fil-A. I personally believe gay marraige should be legal, but the reaction is embarrasing. Of couse the right has to then react to the left's reaction to make themselves look just as foolish.

 

As an independent, I as usual, shake my head at both sides wondering if they will tackle more important matters or if they will just grandstand to their bases hoping to get one more vote.

[flpmagikat]

A we weak "moderates" how dare we not go blindly one way or the other! You know, despite what the blubbering walrus might say - you can have a strong opinion that falls between right and left-wing extremism. Shocking, I know.

 

That said, it is true that the Democrats are just vote pandering with gay marriage. It just bothers me that they are wielding the government's powers against people who have differing opinions on gay marriage. I don't think there has been adequate criticism of that abhorrent move.

What, pandering to the people who believe in equal rights? Pandering to the people who think being a bigot makes you kinda a bad person? I really dont care why obama or any democrat supports gay marriage, they arent wasting their breath demonizing it.

[TheLeviathan]

What, pandering to the people who believe in equal rights? Pandering to the people who think being a bigot makes you kinda a bad person? I really dont care why obama or any democrat supports gay marriage, they arent wasting their breath demonizing it.

I believe they're pandering to it because many of them don't actually want gay marriage allowed.

 

And, again I'll say this, no one has a right to be married. Straight, gay, or otherwise. We could make some serious progress allowing gay marriage if we'd stop talking about it in such obnoxiously stupid terms (traditional vs. rights).

[TheLeviathan]

The whole issue is ridiculous. And making this fuss probably only helps Chick-Fil-A. I personally believe gay marraige should be legal, but the reaction is embarrasing. Of couse the right has to then react to the left's reaction to make themselves look just as foolish.

 

As an independent, I as usual, shake my head at both sides wondering if they will tackle more important matters or if they will just grandstand to their bases hoping to get one more vote.

Well said.

[flpmagikat]

I honestly think most people dont give a damn if gay people call themselves married. Some folks on the right and less on the left get all up in arms about what constitutes a marriage. I prefer the democrats support of the matter, even if it just comes in the form of apathy. Marriage isnt a right, but to entitle some citizens to certain right because they happened to have been born a certain way is discrimination.

[TheLeviathan]

I honestly think most people dont give a damn if gay people call themselves married. Some folks on the right and less on the left get all up in arms about what constitutes a marriage. I prefer the democrats support of the matter, even if it just comes in the form of apathy. Marriage isnt a right, but to entitle some citizens to certain right because they happened to have been born a certain way is discrimination.

We discriminate all the time when we grant licenses. Discrimination isn't the problem - it's that it's groundless, stupid reasons for it that are the problem.

[Badsmerf]

Really Lev? Its pretty funny lately we've had a few topics that I side with the left on... Anyway, saying discrimination isn't apart of this is a reach. Being married has benefits in this country, mostly tax benefits. When anyone specifies that one group (man and woman) can be married and another group (man and man or woman and woman) cannot, you are discriminating and not giving equal rights to all groups. I could care less about the church and who can be married under God, we are just talking being married by law. I don't see why its that complicated actually. I don't understand the anti-gay position at all. This doesn't effect them other than give them a right that others aren't granted.

[TheLeviathan]

Really Lev? Its pretty funny lately we've had a few topics that I side with the left on... Anyway, saying discrimination isn't apart of this is a reach. Being married has benefits in this country, mostly tax benefits. When anyone specifies that one group (man and woman) can be married and another group (man and man or woman and woman) cannot, you are discriminating and not giving equal rights to all groups. I could care less about the church and who can be married under God, we are just talking being married by law. I don't see why its that complicated actually. I don't understand the anti-gay position at all. This doesn't effect them other than give them a right that others aren't granted.

We don't give equal rights to all groups when it comes to licenses because a license is only intended to go to some, not all. From a legal/government point of view we aren't discriminating against 14 year olds because we don't let them drive. Or against the illiterate because we don't license them to teach. Or against the blind to drive school buses.

 

I do agree that the people opposed to gay marriage are doing it out of bigotry, it just irks me to hear that we are denying people "rights". A license is not something you have a "right" to.

[flpmagikat]

Last weekend, I went to one of my best friends weddings. That day, I witnessed a smile ive never seen before on not only his, but his wife and all their families faces. I went with a male date who I have no intentions of marrying. I cant really consider the option, as it isnt legal in this state and some politicians are working to make sure that it never happens based on their religous views. There's a fair chance Joe Biden and Barack Obama dont particularly like what I do, but ill take their Fairweather support over the hate that I recieve from those on the other side. I know you're more libertarian than anything, but being a centrist doesnt mean both sides are equal.

[TheLeviathan]

but ill take their Fairweather support over the hate that I recieve from those on the other side. I know you're more libertarian than anything, but being a centrist doesnt mean both sides are equal.

Very true, didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Though I would argue that fairweather support has a good deal to do with why so little progress has been made. There isn't much courage coming from that side of the aisle, though clearly far less bigotry. The "defense of marriage" stuff is motivated by hate and bigotry, so you're right that the other side of coin has been far worse.

[flpmagikat]

Our current president repealed dont ask dont tell. Like I said, being a centrist doesnt mean one side isnt wrong.

[PseudoSABR]

The pandering is in the direction of being squeamish about gay marriage. I'm sure Obama and Biden have believed that the gov't should be granting marriage licences to same-sex couples for decades. It's common sense from a classic liberal point of view. There's really no moderate position on this. Part of the problem is the fight isn't just a legal one, it's a cultural one. Gay couples want not only the legal rights of marriage, but also the public sanctity of their individual gods and cultural recognition at large, which is totally human and legitimate. The fight isn't about granting gay couples marriage licences it's about preventing gay couples from getting them. The whether marriage-is-a-right argument is disingenuous, foolhardy moderation. Whether the government gives out marriage licences or dog licences, it's the intervention to prevent that disrupts the regular flow of public life, not vise versa. It's no coincidence that those who state gay marriage should be a non-issue are those not affected by it.

 

What's so damn irritating about the Right's fight on this issue is their claim to family values. Seemingly, they'd rather have crackhead single parent homes (they probably believe in Jesus) than stable gay coupled families. It's absurd and really morally bankrupt.

 

Chik-Fil-A might get publicity for a short time, but really, this kind publicity tarnishes the brand after its out of the news cycle. Would I want to be franchise owner of a Chik-Fil-A in a gentrified neighborhood? No. Maybe Chik-Fil-A will gain popularity among white suburbs, but the entrenchment of KFC, etc, leads me to believe, as far as business, this is self-headbutt-dumb move.

 

I find it harder to believe that all of us don't occupy a world where heterosexuals become close to people who are homosexual and who take same-sex partners, and that those heterosexuals wouldn't want what their gay friends/family want for themselves, that they wouldn't be willing to fight for such a basic recognition on their behalf.

 

As far as I'm concerned, being American is about fighting for what is right, in spite of what tradition or the law might say (a founding principle, I think).

[flpmagikat]

I dont know that I agree with you pseudo; I dont believe that either our president or VP have considered the idea of same sex marriage over their careers. However I dont doubt their sincerity on the matter now, isnt that the idea of progrossesivism? I am sure they are counting votes at the same time. Every politician does. And the more national you are the more you concede.

[PseudoSABR]

I dont know that I agree with you pseudo; I dont believe that either our president or VP have considered the idea of same sex marriage over their careers. However I dont doubt their sincerity on the matter now, isnt that the idea of progrossesivism? I am sure they are counting votes at the same time. Every politician does. And the more national you are the more you concede.

I think political liberals must cow to the center and acquiesce to religious norms to get elected. I just think it wasn't politically favorable for Democrats to support a position that would seem radical (even if it's really a natural progression of civil rights). I think progressive movements result not from people changing their mind, but rather people entering a culture that makes it more comfortable to be publicly progressive. Young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, those who oppose it will die out; whether anyone else changes their minds, it's simply a matter of time for gay marriage to be recognized nationally.

 

I do agree, that as a point of policy Obama and Biden would never evoke gay marriage, but I also think that they'd only oppose it for political reasons, not because of their principles.

[fatbeer]

Which politicians on the left are actually supporting gay Marriage, because to me it seems like it's just Gavin Newsome. I'll give Biden credit to because I think his support was his actual opinion and not a political play but he has about the same amount of political power as my dog in his current position. The younger generation on the right in many cases was vocal in supporting gay marriage including John kriesel. Until the ballot amendment is leagalize it or state government votes on it I don't really care about the issue. The amendment in Minnesota will pass, but really will not change anything in a meaningful way it will simply mean instead of 52% supporting it we're still sitting closer to 40%

[TheLeviathan]

The whether marriage-is-a-right argument is disingenuous, foolhardy moderation. Whether the government gives out marriage licences or dog licences, it's the intervention to prevent that disrupts the regular flow of public life, not vise versa. It's no coincidence that those who state gay marriage should be a non-issue are those not affected by it.

How is being accurate disingenuous? Marriage isn't a right. Nothing that we have a "right" to is licensed by the friggin county we live in. (Except for more extreme versions of fundamental rights, like conceal and carry. But even then no one is licensing you to have a rifle in your home)

 

The rest of this paragraph doesn't make much sense. The value of recognizing a license for what it is (read: NOT A RIGHT) is that it shifts the conversation to practical questions rather than religious nonsense. Then we ask - do gay couples meet the qualifications for a license as much as hetero couples? The answer to those questions, in virtually every fair and meaningful study done, is yes. Licenses aren't meant to inhibit the rights of others, they are meant to enforce the function of the license. There is a reason not everyone is licensed to drive, teach, practice psychology, drive a semi, or anything else you want to list. Licenses "give permission". Rights are, by their very nature, ours without permission.

 

The issue gets confused (understandably, but no less wrongly) here - you have a right to socialize with whom you choose. The license is another level of this socialization that requires permission - and rightfully so. Society has a vested interest in only encouraging positive social relationships for economic and child rearing purposes. Gay couples meet those interests now and if we focus the conversation there (rather than playing in the ballfield that favors the wackos, see: non-empirical) than we have a chance to change this.

 

But good god lefties - not everything is a damn right, get off of that nonsense.

[PseudoSABR]

No one's saying it's a right. However, it's unethical, imho, to deny privileges to some people based on sexual preferences. I suppose the gov't doesn't HAVE to grant dog licences to Latinos, but it'd be pretty craptastic if they didn't.

[TheLeviathan]

No one's saying it's a right. However, it's unethical, imho, to deny privileges to some people based on sexual preferences. I suppose the gov't doesn't HAVE to grant dog licences to Latinos, but it'd be pretty craptastic if they didn't.

Psued, all you have to do is look at this thread to see that it is being talked about constantly on this issue. Discrimination happens all the time in the law, the key is that it can pass the Equal Protection Clause. Frankly, homosexual couples were rightly discriminated against from marriage licenses for a long time - they weren't positive environments (or environments at all) for raising children or stable relationships. That wasn't always their doing of course, but it was the truth. But those reasons have change and THAT is the grounds you fight this issue on because it completely diffuses all of the nonsensical attacks from the right.

 

When you do that it concentrates the argument on the EP Clause. So now you focus on the arguments that used to be opposed to gay marriage which have changed. All of the arguments for why homosexual couples would be unfit for marriage recognition (stable partnerships, economic partnership, child rearing) are extinct. Studies show homosexual partners are just as good as hetero couples on all of these fronts. I completely agree that we should be making the moral appeal as well, but not in terms of "rights". More in terms of what is "right" to do in how to treat another human being. But that is a separate and lesser campaign then this. People forget that many of the major steps forward in civil rights were by judges and the system of law recognizing the injustice. That forced the conversation to moral grounds but with the force of law behind the right cause. And since we are talking about a legal privilege - battling it in court makes SO much more sense than on the ground the religious whackos decide.

[biggentleben]

From a legal/government point of view we aren't discriminating against 14 year olds because we don't let them drive.

Um, some states allow 14 year-olds full driving licences. Not an argument on the point, just stating fact.

[TheLeviathan]

Um, some states allow 14 year-olds full driving licences. Not an argument on the point, just stating fact.

Then pick a different age. Try 11. Or many 91 year olds. The point was we discriminate all the time.