[Distance]

	Originally Posted by sommers71 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	shame campaigns.

Irony is chokingly thick.

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A state definition of marriage consisting of a particular religious interpretation of a particular religious book, in this case the Bible, which excludes by way of law citizens who profess differing religious interpretations (of even the same book) from attaining equal marriage rights in consonance with their religious beliefs is the privileging of a particular theology within the state and a restriction upon the free practice of other religions by consequence of the same. Religious law of this kind, beyond its conflict with establishment, results in systematic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. by the manner in which private familial groups of citizens are shunted through the approval of that particular theology. The US is a democratic republic, not a direct democracy. It seems to me that an electorate has no constitutional license to vote that. People are free to live their lives based upon their religious beliefs as they so choose. They are specifically not free to merge preferred theology with the state in an effort to suppress dissent from that preference. And they have done it anyway.

You're assuming that people only want same-sex marriage to be illegal for religious reasons. That's not the case. Just personally, I know a few (non-homophobic) people who consider homosexuality wrong for evolutionary reasons.

[Urshulgi]

The employees of Chick-Fil-A enjoy something most people working for "tolerant" service companies don't, a guaranteed day off on the weekend.

I'm coming home to the U.S. on vacation for the first time in almost two years next week. Rest assured that I will make it a point to eat at Chick-Fil-A a couple of times while I'm home.

I realize that it's become socially illegal to state any opinion that indicates you don't give a rat's ass about gays, jews, muslims, or non-whites, but I'm going to go ahead and patronize Chick-Fil-A because it's quite tasty, and the comments the owner made weren't very extreme at all. The media, the fags, and the pc pussies are blowing it completely out of proportion.

It's America. People are allowed to state their opinions, even if you disagree with them. It's sad to watch the country devolve into an adult junior high type of atmosphere where no one is allowed to state an unpopular opinion without being crucified by legions of sheep.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People are allowed to state their opinions, even if you disagree with them.

Unintended irony is wickedly funny!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Had fried chicken two nights in a row and not from Chick-Fil-A. It's the power of the consumer, to choose not to enrich bigots.

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	you don't give a rat's ass about gays

"spending millions of dollars" to influence laws is not "not giving a rat's ass".

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just personally, I know a few (non-homophobic) people who consider homosexuality wrong for evolutionary reasons.

This is a contradiction in terms. If you want to take the rights of gay people away for a reason that makes no sense, you are homophobic, whether you identify with the label or not.

[Daoist]

I don't really understand why this thread has gone on for as long as it has. If a company complies with relevant laws and regulations, then it can get a zoning permit. Period. (And it has a right to complain about those laws as well, while following them.) Any other policy just opens up the door for corruption, which doesn't help anybody. Would politicians seriously not abuse this sort of power?

Once they open their stores, they will discover for real what the social climate is like.

[Urshulgi]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unintended irony is wickedly funny! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Had fried chicken two nights in a row and not from Chick-Fil-A. It's the power of the consumer, to choose not to enrich bigots.

Do you know, with any kind of certainty that you aren't giving money to bigots on a regular basis? Lots of bigots and racists own stock in publicly traded companies that you buy products from, and they profit from your business.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Unintended irony would be someone casually tossing out the bigot label while styling themselves as open-minded and tolerant. Or is that hypocrisy? You'll have to clarify for me, as I'm not great with words or definitions. I am quite accommodating though, and I hope this little bit of research aids your reply.

Bigot
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

You're discriminating against Chick-Fil-A because you don't agree with the opinion of their founder, a man no longer actively involved in the operation of the company.

Congratulations, you're a bigot.

[IotaNull]

Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you know, with any kind of certainty that you aren't giving money to bigots on a regular basis? Lots of bigots and racists own stock in publicly traded companies that you buy products from, and they profit from your business. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Unintended irony would be someone casually tossing out the bigot label while styling themselves as open-minded and tolerant. Or is that hypocrisy? You'll have to clarify for me, as I'm not great with words or definitions. I am quite accommodating though, and I hope this little bit of research aids your reply. Bigot noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. You're discriminating against Chick-Fil-A because you don't agree with the opinion of their founder, a man no longer actively involved in the operation of the company. Congratulations, you're a bigot.

in·co·her·ence n.
lack of cohesion or clarity or organization

im·plau.si·bi.li·ty n.
the quality of provoking disbelief

Choosing not to patronise a place is not discrimination in any relevant sense of the word. The principles of the founder are still alive and well even if he's not actively involved (which I don't give you enough credit to take as truth without a source), and most of the objections are to the company's activity brought into the public eye by the founder's statement rather than the statement itself. It's better to give cash in a way that might indirectly benefit a bigot than in a way that's guaranteed to directly benefit bigots. Intolerance of intolerance is not equivalent to intolerance of pretty much anything else, and certainly isn't bigotry unless you're trying to define the word so widely that it becomes essentially meaningless. "If we do lots of subtle semantic sleight of hand, I can really tangentially say that you technically meet definition X, therefore you're just as bad as those who blatantly meet definition X" is not a persuasive line of argument. Nor is "this acceptable example is technically X to an extremely small degree, therefore X is acceptable to any degree". Companies which actively oppose civil rights do not deserve equal standing with those that support them for the purposes of analogies, any more than organised theft rings deserve equal standing with charities. Any questions?

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see how this sets a good precedent... maybe that's just me and my ignorant non-American ass.

I'd rather elected leaders have a pair of balls than settle into some mealy-mouthed safe zone, whether I agree with them or not. I'd rather have an Andrew Jackson than a James A. Garfield in the White House or what-have-you. If Boston doesn't agree with Menino, they can vote his ass out.

	The employees of Chick-Fil-A enjoy something most people working for "tolerant" service companies don't, a guaranteed day off on the weekend.

If you work for a Japanese firm, they shut down the business for a week around New Years so people can celebrate with their family. And they ain't even religious.

[IotaNull]

Interesting column from a blog I read called
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
on this issue:

If the KKK wanted to open a bar in Logan Square, a bar that is open to all people and contains no indication of racist beliefs, the GOP would not rally around the bar when Boston’s mayor vows to block it. We all accept that it’s socially acceptable to block that bar from opening, because we don’t want that association. Even if there’s not a single white hood in sight, everyone would be fine with Boston’s mayor fighting it. No question. If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to open a “church” in Logan Square where they’d pray for the deaths of American soldiers and post signs to that effect, we’d all be fine with Boston trying to block it. The GOP wouldn’t go crazy about religious freedoms, because they don’t recognize the concept when it’s a religion they dislike. We all are fine blocking Westboro from expanding when we can. The only reason that there’s a movement to support Chik-Fil-A is because, on the right, it is perfectly acceptable to hate gay people. It’s not economic freedom, or that KKK example would be wrong. It’s not religious freedom, or the Westboro example would be wrong. The only distinguishing factor? The GOP is fine with people who hate gays. They want to support people who hate gays. They think it is a social mission for their religious tribe to make sure people feel comfortable hating gays publicly. The GOP considers it a win when a corporation, which of course is supposed to be devoted to making money, decides to spend money in culture wars, because it knows that that money goes to GOP candidates. If Chik-Fil-A hated black people, there’d be no GOP support. If Chik-Fil-A printed “God loves dead soldiers” on cups, there’d be no GOP support. The only reason for GOP support for Chik-Fil-A is because the GOP is fine with hating gays. Anything short of that statement is either ignorant or a lie.

Emphasis theirs.

I'm certainly not claiming that this is the mother of all sources, but the point of the column is essentially correct. And I think it holds just as true for the everyday person as for the GOP.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you know, with any kind of certainty that you aren't giving money to bigots on a regular basis? Lots of bigots and racists own stock in publicly traded companies that you buy products from, and they profit from your business. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

'We're in your sewers, wallowing in your poo'. Sounds like ceiling cat, watching you fap in glee.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Unintended irony would be someone casually tossing out the bigot label while styling themselves as open-minded and tolerant.

Ah yes, the rebuttal of raging Christians, deeming Atheism to be a religion.

	You're discriminating against Chick-Fil-A because you don't agree with the opinion of their founder, a man no longer actively involved in the operation of the company.

One action is reliant on hating gays for nothing other than being gay which isn't a disease or can be helped. The other, is in refusing to financially support a bigot. Quite a distinction, one I question that you'd be able to comprehend.

[BlackOp]

Where this gets "dicey"....in the good ol' U.S. of A. ...is corporations can, now, give unlimited political contributions. You know..because they are considered breathing, living "citizens" and all. If Chik-Fil-A is contributing millions...it's not out of "goodwill"..they definitely are attempting to buy influence with these "donations". They are a 4 billion dollar a year citizen...which means their political reach is far greater than myself or the ordinary tax payer.

Interesting situation going on.. as they aren't merely a single businessman with a backward-ass opinion. It's a billion-dollar corporation that has the power to potentially influence the social climate. It's one thing to make chicken sandwiches...another to be actively donating millions to repress social progress. The company is, then, just a monetary front for a religious political agenda.

The real problem... is our country has opened the door for corporations to contribute unlimited amounts..Take that away..and no one cares.

[Daoist]

If the KKK wanted to open a bar in Logan Square, a bar that is open to all people and contains no indication of racist beliefs, the GOP would not rally around the bar when Boston’s mayor vows to block it. We all accept that it’s socially acceptable to block that bar from opening, because we don’t want that association. Even if there’s not a single white hood in sight, everyone would be fine with Boston’s mayor fighting it. No question.

Not so fast. You have the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to worry about, for one. But then the economists. I read a study recently (can't find the link now, sorry) saying that much of the difference in housing prices across US cities can be attributed to land use regulations - a sort of first mover advantage. The people who come in first prevent people from building new houses after them.

Perhaps the GOP wouldn't be shouting so loudly if it were the KKK, but that still doesn't excuse the mayor's actions.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Where this gets "dicey"....in the good ol' U.S. of A. ...is corporations can, now, give unlimited political contributions. You know..because they are considered breathing, living "citizens" and all. If Chik-Fil-A is contributing millions...it's not out of "goodwill"..they definitely are attempting to buy influence with these "donations". They are a 4 billion dollar a year citizen...which means their political reach is far greater than myself or the ordinary tax payer. Interesting situation going on.. as they aren't merely a single businessman with a backward-ass opinion. It's a billion-dollar corporation that has the power to potentially influence the social climate. It's one thing to make chicken sandwiches...another to be actively donating millions to repress social progress. The company is, then, just a monetary front for a religious political agenda. The real problem... is our country has opened the door for corporations to contribute unlimited amounts..Take that away..and no one cares.

Campaign financing does certainly impact the popularity (i.e. marketing/ad campaign) of a politician, but I'm wondering if that impact is as far-reaching as we are lead to believe? I'm not saying that I believe it's one way or the other. I'd like to see a meta-analysis of all elections (state/federal) which compared campaign financing as a predictor for victory, but you'd also have to correct for sources of campaign financing. For example, much of Obama's financing comes from individuals contributing less than $25. Romney's is mostly coming from corps contributing thousands or more.

The fundamental question: Just how much does money influence elections?

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're assuming that people only want same-sex marriage to be illegal for religious reasons. That's not the case. Just personally, I know a few (non-homophobic) people who consider homosexuality wrong for evolutionary reasons.

Fat people getting married would be wrong for evolutionary reasons too, but no one is trying to prevent them from getting married. Plus, if you're out of the gene pool, you don't really matter to our evolution. It would be better for them to not feel forced to breed if you're just afraid of their genes polluting things. Are they afraid they're going to make more gay babies?

I'm more afraid of fat people making more fat babies, or stupid people making more stupid babies, but it would never be denied legally.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps the GOP wouldn't be shouting so loudly if it were the KKK

It's not just that. Would anyone else object? Would you?

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...I know a few (non-homophobic) people who consider homosexuality wrong for evolutionary reasons.

Actually homosexuality would be right for evolutionary reasons: overpopulation would threaten the survival of the species, therefore a "homo" gene would be turned on thereby reducing the urge to procreate.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm certainly not claiming that this is the mother of all sources, but the point of the column is essentially correct. And I think it holds just as true for the everyday person as for the GOP.

Do you consider any part of that logical?

Anyway, you're missing the donut and focusing on the hole. I take this thread to be about government abuse of power, not retaliation against the abuse of civil rights, or the definition thereof (i.e., whether or not the marriage of homosexuals, polygamists, bestiality…ists, what have you, is a civil right).

Educate the people and then let them decide. Quit trying to enforce laws that don't exist; or worse, twisting existing laws until they serve your purpose. Bureaucrats make lousy parents -- people should be able to decide for themselves, short of breaking any ACTUAL laws.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you consider any part of that logical?

Yes, and that's not a matter of opinion. The argument presented is deductively valid. The only way you can credibly counter-argue is to reject the premise that the KKK and/or Westboro would be acceptable targets for the same behaviour.

Anyway, you're missing the donut and focusing on the hole. I take this thread to be about government abuse of power, not retaliation against the abuse of civil rights, or the definition thereof (i.e., whether or not the marriage of homosexuals, polygamists, bestiality…ists, what have you, is a civil right). Educate the people and then let them decide. Quit trying to enforce laws that don't exist; or worse, twisting existing laws until they serve your purpose. Bureaucrats make lousy parents -- people should be able to decide for themselves, short of breaking any ACTUAL laws.

stasis put this much better than I ever could. The "abuse of power" here is comparable to using the same behaviour to prevent the mob from expanding. And again, the only reason a difference is perceived is because it's currently considered socially acceptable to want to have a visceral hatred of minority groups written into law.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, and that's not a matter of opinion. The argument presented is deductively valid. The only way you can credibly counter-argue is to reject the premise that the KKK and/or Westboro would be acceptable targets for the same behaviour.

Wrong -- that's an emotional response. You're misrepresenting the GOP's and the "everyday" person's interpretation of marriage as hatred towards gays. That's an incredible leap in logic.

	stasis put this much better than I ever could. The "abuse of power" here is comparable to using the same behaviour to prevent the mob from expanding. And again, the only reason a difference is perceived is because it's currently considered socially acceptable to want to have a visceral hatred of minority groups written into law.

I had to cock my head and turn it just right, but still couldn't find the sense in this response. To enforce RICO, you must show a pattern of illegal activity -- not just imagine it in your head.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wrong -- that's an emotional response. You're misrepresenting the GOP's and the "everyday" person's interpretation of marriage as hatred towards gays. That's an incredible leap in logic.

What other possible cause is there that isn't ultimately rooted in either a hatred of gays or a baseless fear of them? (No, historical precedent does not qualify if you're trying to be at all consistent.)

	I had to cock my head and turn it just right, but still couldn't find the sense in this response. To enforce RICO, you must show a pattern of illegal activity -- not just imagine it in your head.

Lucky I never said anything about RICO, then, isn't it?

[Melchizedek]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is a contradiction in terms. If you want to take the rights of gay people away for a reason that makes no sense, you are homophobic, whether you identify with the label or not.

A: You are not the arbiter of what makes sense. I entirely understand their reasoning.
B: The definition of homophobic is quite simple and that's not at all it.

Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fat people getting married would be wrong for evolutionary reasons too, but no one is trying to prevent them from getting married. Plus, if you're out of the gene pool, you don't really matter to our evolution. It would be better for them to not feel forced to breed if you're just afraid of their genes polluting things. Are they afraid they're going to make more gay babies? I'm more afraid of fat people making more fat babies, or stupid people making more stupid babies, but it would never be denied legally.

No, they're worried about exactly the opposite; good genes being removed from the gene pool for no reason.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What other possible cause is there that isn't ultimately rooted in either a hatred of gays or a baseless fear of them? (No, historical precedent does not qualify if you're trying to be at all consistent.)

The flaw in your logic is that civil unions between self-identified homosexuals is accepted more broadly than legal marriage. This distinction would not be so if hatred was the motivating force.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...The "abuse of power" here is comparable to using the same behaviour to prevent the mob from expanding...

	Lucky I never said anything about RICO, then, isn't it?

You are advocating what here? An elected official's right to decide who gets to operate a business and who doesn't based on their own personal beliefs?

[Urshulgi]

Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

'We're in your sewers, wallowing in your poo'. Sounds like ceiling cat, watching you fap in glee. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Ah yes, the rebuttal of raging Christians, deeming Atheism to be a religion. One action is reliant on hating gays for nothing other than being gay which isn't a disease or can be helped. The other, is in refusing to financially support a bigot. Quite a distinction, one I question that you'd be able to comprehend.

I'm an agnostic. You're making an assumption that I'm a christian because I had the gall to point out your hypocrisy. You used the word bigot, and I pointed out that your own actions puts you in the same category, which is true. If you don't want to be in that category, you should choose your words more carefully.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm an agnostic. You're making an assumption that I'm a christian

No. Same tactic.