4 ms·

If the gay community would just leave this company alone he wouldn't be forced to stand up for his views (in public) in the first place. I've known this family

If the gay community would just leave this company alone he wouldn't be forced to stand up for his views (in public) in the first place. I've known this family for years. They are good people and don't wish any ill will on anyone regardless of their views. The gay community just won't accept the fact that Chick-fil-A will never agree with their moral stance. BTW, this has been going on for years.

monkeyfacebag 14y ago
Can you be more specific about what the gay community has done to this person that forced him to stand up for his views in public? I am genuinely ignorant here and would like some information.
- blackbird_t 14y ago
  Here's the latest example: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-muppets-huckabee-20120723,0,1227873.story http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-m...
  - monkeyfacebag 14y ago
    OK, I want to hear you out, but I have major problems with this evidence. First, in what way are the mayor of Boston and the Jim Henson company emissaries from the gay community? Second, this article references things that happened after Dan Cathy's remarks. You indicated that there were incidents prior to (indeed causing) those remarks to be made. I'm aware of all the stuff going on now, but you led me to believe there was some history I was unaware of. Can you explain?
    - blackbird_t 14y ago
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp There's now way to solidify proof based on this. However it seems clear Jim Hensons Company severed ties after Dan Cathy (son of founder Truett Cathy) expressed his views in an interview with "Baptist Press".
  - rayiner 14y ago
    What's wrong with Jim Henson Co's actions? If you don't like a person or company and what they stand for, you're free not to work with them.
gergles 14y ago
They don't wish any ill will on them, they just want to deny them a civil right. You know, no big deal.
- blackbird_t 14y ago
  The court's don't agree with your loose definition of civil rights and neither do I.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Marriage is a fundamental right according to the supreme court.
  - gergles 14y ago
    Really? Pretty sure they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia
    - blackbird_t 14y ago
      Weak argument... This is specifically talking about race not personal preference. Nice try though.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        No, Loving v. Virginia is not just specifically about race. It recognizes marriage as one of the fundamental rights.
      - kbolino 14y ago
        As marriages are (generally) not arranged in this country, all marriages are about personal preferences. Mildred Loving, a black woman, chose a white man to marry. She was as free to marry a black man as any gay person is free to marry a straight person of the opposite sex. The case is completely relevant, and saying that "race is not a choice" is immaterial to the matter; the trial was not about race, it was about the freedom to marry the person of one's choosing.
rayiner 14y ago
I question how good they can be given their donations to anti-gay groups. It's one thing to disagree morally with someone's stance on something like gay marriage. It's something else entirely to fund campaigns to take away other peoples' rights. That's a morally bad act. Nobody is mad at Chick-fil-A for being bigoted in the privacy of their own home. They're mad at Chick-fil-A for their actions and for how they spend their money on bigoted campaigns.
- sigzero 14y ago
  Technically they never had that right and won't until the Supreme Court rules on it. So they aren't taking away anything at all. Currently in the majority of States "marriage equality" is one man can marry one woman and that applies to everyone. The big deal is that someone that is "famous" said publicly that he doesn't support gay marriage. The LGBT movement, "tolerant" as they are, just can't have that.
  - gergles 14y ago
    The Supreme Court did rule on it. In the 60s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... " There is also a significant difference between "not supporting" something and campaigning to prevent anyone from doing it. I "don't support" tax-exempt religion, but I'm not giving money to a lobbying group to try to end it.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    No, the big deal is that the CEO of a huge company donated millions to fund anti-gay legislation. That's a huge difference.
  - kbolino 14y ago
    Insofar as the discussion remains civil, either both sides are guilty of "intolerance" or neither are. When one side makes unreasonable demands, and carries them into action, then we can begin to discuss an imbalance of tolerance.
msbarnett 14y ago
Oh those mean gays, why won't they just leave this poor family alone and let this family continue to pour millions of dollars into keeping them a permanent underclass who will never enjoy the same rights as straight people in peace?? Obviously being a massive funder of a campaign against equal rights for the gay community is totally a neutral position which in no way harms gay people, but pointing out the fact that they've been doing it? Why, that makes gay people big meanies who are attacking this nice family for no reason.
- blackbird_t 14y ago
  Gay activists is a more appropriate term. And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? When you bring your views into the public square by funding public campaigns to espouse those views, you can't complain when people react to those views. Chick-fil-A did something far stronger than simply get on a microphone in the public media and argue a particular viewpoint. It spent millions of dollars trying to affect legislation.
  - kbolino 14y ago
    >>> Gay activists is a more appropriate term. What is Focus on the Family? Or the Family Research Council? Eagle Forum? >>> And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. They are "looking for a fight" to be fought in the public square, in legislatures and courts, over what many of them consider to be a legal injustice. Is this not the intended form of democracy? >>> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? Why is it so bothersome to point this fact out? If they do not wish to be injured by the information, then they have the power to make it false. >>> They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. The fact they were (previously) not very vocal about their views negates them how? >>> Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. As is his right? Just like the Cathy family has the same right? >>> Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right Disagreement does not require a dismissive attitude. I could just as easily denigrate your opinions and your position, but that benefits no one.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stephencanon 14y ago
There are a variety of phrases that come to mind to describe someone who wants to withhold basic privileges from other people because they believe a man in the sky commands it. "good people" is not among them. > Chick-fil-A will never agree with their moral stance There's the problem. Morals are neither here nor there. You can believe that homosexuality is wrong and still recognize that allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage contract is just and right. I think lying is wrong, but I wouldn't try to advance legislation that prevents liars from getting married.

monkeyfacebag 14y ago

Can you be more specific about what the gay community has done to this person that forced him to stand up for his views in public? I am genuinely ignorant here and would like some information.

blackbird_t 14y ago
Here's the latest example: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-muppets-huckabee-20120723,0,1227873.story http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-m...
- monkeyfacebag 14y ago
  OK, I want to hear you out, but I have major problems with this evidence. First, in what way are the mayor of Boston and the Jim Henson company emissaries from the gay community? Second, this article references things that happened after Dan Cathy's remarks. You indicated that there were incidents prior to (indeed causing) those remarks to be made. I'm aware of all the stuff going on now, but you led me to believe there was some history I was unaware of. Can you explain?
  - blackbird_t 14y ago
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp There's now way to solidify proof based on this. However it seems clear Jim Hensons Company severed ties after Dan Cathy (son of founder Truett Cathy) expressed his views in an interview with "Baptist Press".
- rayiner 14y ago
  What's wrong with Jim Henson Co's actions? If you don't like a person or company and what they stand for, you're free not to work with them.

gergles 14y ago

They don't wish any ill will on them, they just want to deny them a civil right. You know, no big deal.

blackbird_t 14y ago
The court's don't agree with your loose definition of civil rights and neither do I.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Marriage is a fundamental right according to the supreme court.
- gergles 14y ago
  Really? Pretty sure they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia
  - blackbird_t 14y ago
    Weak argument... This is specifically talking about race not personal preference. Nice try though.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      No, Loving v. Virginia is not just specifically about race. It recognizes marriage as one of the fundamental rights.
    - kbolino 14y ago
      As marriages are (generally) not arranged in this country, all marriages are about personal preferences. Mildred Loving, a black woman, chose a white man to marry. She was as free to marry a black man as any gay person is free to marry a straight person of the opposite sex. The case is completely relevant, and saying that "race is not a choice" is immaterial to the matter; the trial was not about race, it was about the freedom to marry the person of one's choosing.

rayiner 14y ago

I question how good they can be given their donations to anti-gay groups. It's one thing to disagree morally with someone's stance on something like gay marriage. It's something else entirely to fund campaigns to take away other peoples' rights. That's a morally bad act. Nobody is mad at Chick-fil-A for being bigoted in the privacy of their own home. They're mad at Chick-fil-A for their actions and for how they spend their money on bigoted campaigns.

sigzero 14y ago
Technically they never had that right and won't until the Supreme Court rules on it. So they aren't taking away anything at all. Currently in the majority of States "marriage equality" is one man can marry one woman and that applies to everyone. The big deal is that someone that is "famous" said publicly that he doesn't support gay marriage. The LGBT movement, "tolerant" as they are, just can't have that.
- gergles 14y ago
  The Supreme Court did rule on it. In the 60s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... " There is also a significant difference between "not supporting" something and campaigning to prevent anyone from doing it. I "don't support" tax-exempt religion, but I'm not giving money to a lobbying group to try to end it.
- rayiner 14y ago
  No, the big deal is that the CEO of a huge company donated millions to fund anti-gay legislation. That's a huge difference.
- kbolino 14y ago
  Insofar as the discussion remains civil, either both sides are guilty of "intolerance" or neither are. When one side makes unreasonable demands, and carries them into action, then we can begin to discuss an imbalance of tolerance.

msbarnett 14y ago

Oh those mean gays, why won't they just leave this poor family alone and let this family continue to pour millions of dollars into keeping them a permanent underclass who will never enjoy the same rights as straight people in peace?? Obviously being a massive funder of a campaign against equal rights for the gay community is totally a neutral position which in no way harms gay people, but pointing out the fact that they've been doing it? Why, that makes gay people big meanies who are attacking this nice family for no reason.

blackbird_t 14y ago
Gay activists is a more appropriate term. And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
- rayiner 14y ago
  > As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? When you bring your views into the public square by funding public campaigns to espouse those views, you can't complain when people react to those views. Chick-fil-A did something far stronger than simply get on a microphone in the public media and argue a particular viewpoint. It spent millions of dollars trying to affect legislation.
- kbolino 14y ago
  >>> Gay activists is a more appropriate term. What is Focus on the Family? Or the Family Research Council? Eagle Forum? >>> And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. They are "looking for a fight" to be fought in the public square, in legislatures and courts, over what many of them consider to be a legal injustice. Is this not the intended form of democracy? >>> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? Why is it so bothersome to point this fact out? If they do not wish to be injured by the information, then they have the power to make it false. >>> They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. The fact they were (previously) not very vocal about their views negates them how? >>> Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. As is his right? Just like the Cathy family has the same right? >>> Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right Disagreement does not require a dismissive attitude. I could just as easily denigrate your opinions and your position, but that benefits no one.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

stephencanon 14y ago

There are a variety of phrases that come to mind to describe someone who wants to withhold basic privileges from other people because they believe a man in the sky commands it. "good people" is not among them. > Chick-fil-A will never agree with their moral stance There's the problem. Morals are neither here nor there. You can believe that homosexuality is wrong and still recognize that allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage contract is just and right. I think lying is wrong, but I wouldn't try to advance legislation that prevents liars from getting married.