Chick-Fil-A As A Case Study For Same-Sex Marriage As A Threat To Religious Freedom

[treehugger]

What is interesting about the chik fil a ordeal, is how many supporters of traditional marriage did not, or continue to, rally after prop 8.

What is also missing is how many people did not patronize those establishments which violated State laws/regulations; though it may not be johnny come lately but finally a realization that business needs customers to survive.

[Zakuska]

Well we allready knew that Chik-Fill-A is Racist.

They do after all seperate the white meet from the dark meet.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Zakuska

[treehugger]

People of all races are insulted that people compare racial descrimination to gay marriage.

And others are not, and given that Mrs. Martin Luther king has made comparison of black civil rights to gay marriage.

And I am willing to bet people of all religions and races were insulted by Elder Oaks comparing Mormons post prop 8 to de jour racial discrimination policies.

[treehugger]

Nvm

Edited August 1, 2012 by treehugger

[Scott Lloyd]

I've read enough! I'm off to City Creek for a chicken sandwich.

[Zakuska]

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters

It used to be that taking a bite of a chicken sandwich just meant you were hungry. Now it has become a symbol of whether you stand for or against same-sex marriage, or – alternately – the right to express your personal views without fear of retaliation.

http://www.foxnews.c...ore-protestors/

Edited August 1, 2012 by Zakuska

[sjdawg]

I completely agree that you have that right (boycott a business who doesn't believe in the same things you do).

But I think if you do that, you need to acknowlege that you are an intolerant ideological bully willing to force everyone to agree with you upon pain of financial destruction.

Do what you believe is best, but don't pretend it's something that it's not. (Not that you would Jaybear,i'm speaking in generalities).

I have said it before but it is my understanding Chick-Fil-A has donated funds to organizations in order to defend their definition of marriage. As such, those that disagree with their definition of marriage can be boycotting not because of intolerance but in order to keep their own personal money from indirectly going to an organization they disagree with. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[wenglund]

If this complaint prevails (and I would guess it will), then the case study of Chick-Fil-A would illustrate that same sex marriage doesn’t result in discrimination, correct?

Huh? The issue doesn't have anything to do with the results of so-called SSM, itself. Rather, It is about whether politicians can legally or constitutionally use their political offices to silence or punish people who have opposing views.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lets face it, Jaybear is is just pissed because this has not hurt but helped Chick Fillet.

When I go tonight to get a sandwich, Jaybear I will get one in honor of you.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's assume that Cathy does use his income from Chick-fil-A to do "to support antigay politicians and causes." Is Jaybear suggesting that Cathy's use of his own money for such lawful purposes opens him up as fair game to government actors like the Chicago alderman?

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course it is fine to do it as long as a liberal is doing it to a conservative.

[Zakuska]

http://www.washingto...rGOPX_blog.html

“What would Jesus think about two men and two women getting married?” he asks in his book. “According to the accounts of the life of Jesus as recorded by the Gospels, Jesus never said anything about sexually intimate relationship between people of the same gender. Nor did he comment on sexual behavior between people of the same gender. Period.”

HUH?

Thou shalt not commit Adultury? Matt. 7

Where do these Jokers (who are supposed to know their Bibles) get their ideas from? Mars?

Looks like we can add a casualty to the List Smac:

When Cathy first made his anti-gay marriage remarks a few weeks ago, it became a major media event and a PR nightmare for the company (tragically the head of PR died of a heart attack last week) which, according to one outfit, YouGov Brandindex polling, dropped its public brand approval from 65 percent to 39 percent in the days following the Cathy remarks.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Zakuska

[Analytics]

Huh? The issue doesn't have anything to do with the results of so-called SSM, itself. Rather, It is about whether politicians can legally or constitutionally use their political offices to silence or punish people who have opposing views.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, the issue is the question in the OP: Chick-Fil-A As A Case Study For Same-Sex Marriage As A Threat To Religious Freedom. What does this case study teach us?

My answer is that so far, the case study suggests that complaints about same sex marriage threatening religious freedom are overblown. Expressing his anti-same-sex-marriage views has resulted in lots of publicity and apparently a big increase in business. A couple of city-level officials have stated they won’t be friendly towards the company, but they are either backpedaling or facing legal challenges that they probably won’t win.

In aggregate, Chick-Fil-A expressed their views on this topic, and the result is that they are apparently making a lot more money.

[wenglund]

What is interesting about the chik fil a ordeal, is how many supporters of traditional marriage did not, or continue to, rally after prop 8.

Could you please be more clear about what you see as the correlation you find of interest between the CFA ordeal and the post prop 8 rally of traditional marriage supporters--particularly the part you assume is missing? I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is also missing is how many people did not patronize those establishments which violated State laws/regulations; though it may not be johnny come lately but finally a realization that business needs customers to survive.

Could you please be specific which establishments supposedly violated which state laws/regulation and were supposedly johnny come lately in figuring out that businesses need customers, and what this has to do with the topic of this thread. Again, I can't figure it out, and I am beginning to question if you know what you are talking about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

Here:

http://blog.heritage...igious-freedom/

Same-sex marriage combined with nondiscrimination policies will result in significant discrimination against individuals and institutions that hold to the belief that marriage is—and should be defined in law as—the union of one man and one woman.

In the latest illustration of how this will happen, a Chicago alderman recently explained that he plans to block the chicken restaurant Chick-fil-A from building a new restaurant in his ward because he is offended by the belief of the company’s owners that marriage is between one man and one woman.

“There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs,” the official stated. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.”

Under pressure, this official might attempt to alter his rationale for targeting Chick-fil-A—or even back down altogether like the mayor of Boston did when he was criticized for targeting Chick-fil-A in his city.

However it turns out, though, the Chick-fil-A situation certainly adds to the growing list of cases illustrating how individuals and institutions that continue to support marriage as one man and one woman will likely face a variety of significant burdens:

• A Christian photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremonywas hauled before a human rights tribunal and forced to pay nearly $6,700 in attorneys’ fees to the complainant;
  
• Christian charities have been forced to stop providing foster care and adoption services because they cannot in good conscience comply with laws that would require them to violate beliefs about marriage and family;
  
• Boy Scouts of America has lost equal access to public facilities and programs because of its position on open homosexuality;
  
• A graduate student claims that she was expelled from a public university counseling program after she conscientiously objected to counseling a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship; and
  
• A Christian organization at a public university was denied official recognition because it required officers and voting members to adhere to traditional Christian teachings, including a prohibition on extramarital sex.
  

This is not “live and let live.” This is the state—and sometimes private citizens and the culture at large—punishing people who refuse to recant their belief that marriage is the union of a husband and wife.

This kind of thing happens because proponents of same-sex marriage declare support for marriage as one man and one woman to be a form of irrational prejudice and bigotry similar to racism. In this view, support for marriage as one man and one woman is the kind of belief that should be purged from public life through legal, cultural, and economic pressure.

This is precisely what is happening right now to Chick-fil-A.

___

What do you think? Is same-sex marriage a threat to religious freedom as described by the above blog entry?

Thanks,

-Smac

Absolutely.

The Cathys livelihood and public reputation are being targeted solely for their private religious beliefs.

Neither the Cathys nor their corporation have violated any law- nor have they deprived anyone of their Constitutional rights.

They are being targeted not for their deeds, but for their thoughts.

And that takes this crusade squarely into the realm of Salem and of Torquemada.

If you do not confess, you will drown.

If you do not convert, you will burn,

If you do not relent, we will destroy you.

Refusing to allow building permits and licensing on extra-legal grounds and frivilous investigations and lawsuits by the state are a de facto tax and an un-Constitutional religious test.

Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In aggregate, Chick-Fil-A expressed their views on this topic, and the result is that they are apparently making a lot more money.

Here is a case study for you. Why are they making a lot more money?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have said it before but it is my understanding Chick-Fil-A has donated funds to organizations in order to defend their definition of marriage.

Yes, their church and their charity to encourage their employees to adopt child...indeed evil. Edited August 1, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[bluebell]

I have said it before but it is my understanding Chick-Fil-A has donated funds to organizations in order to defend their definition of marriage. As such, those that disagree with their definition of marriage can be boycotting not because of intolerance but in order to keep their own personal money from indirectly going to an organization they disagree with. Makes a lot of sense to me.

These are my new heros.

"Further up the line, Jessica Cather, 29, Dana Haskins, 42, and Sarah Touhy, 43, all stressed that though they support same-sex marriage, they also support the right to believe what anyone wants to believe.

"We support tolerance on both sides," Haskins said.

"Just because they don't support gay marriage, it doesn't make them a bad company," Touhy said."

I can see your point but i would question whether most of the people who were up in arms about the CFA comment and called for the boycott gave CFA's charity activities a moment's thought. I also wonder, what organizations have they donated to (sincere question as i have no idea)?

And i love how these people above seem to believe that you can't be all self righteous about perceived intolerance of your beliefs if you are, in turn, being intolerant of other people's beliefs. Sometimes you need to support people when they say things you don't agree with just to show how important it is to be able to say things without worrying who agrees with you.

[sjdawg]

Yes their church and there charity to encourage their employees to adopt child...indeed evil.

According to wikipedia (which I take with a grain of salt but this claim does have some references attached). I certainly wouldn't say its evil but I certainly don't expect supporters of gay marriage to be happy to see their money indirectly filtered to these organizations.

Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010.^[37] Between 2003 and 2009, the WinShape Foundation gave more than $2 million to groups such as Focus on the Family and Eagle Forum that are politically active in opposing same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues.^[

[USU78]

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No, the issue is the question in the OP: Chick-Fil-A As A Case Study For Same-Sex Marriage As A Threat To Religious Freedom. What does this case study teach us?

My answer is that so far, the case study suggests that complaints about same sex marriage threatening religious freedom are overblown. Expressing his anti-same-sex-marriage views has resulted in lots of publicity and apparently a big increase in business. A couple of city-level officials have stated they won’t be friendly towards the company, but they are either backpedaling or facing legal challenges that they probably won’t win.

In aggregate, Chick-Fil-A expressed their views on this topic, and the result is that they are apparently making a lot more money.

How does supporting marriage between a man a woman make someone "anti"...would you describe God "anti". Although I admit he is anti-sin.

[sjdawg]

These are my new heros.

"Further up the line, Jessica Cather, 29, Dana Haskins, 42, and Sarah Touhy, 43, all stressed that though they support same-sex marriage, they also support the right to believe what anyone wants to believe.

"We support tolerance on both sides," Haskins said.

"Just because they don't support gay marriage, it doesn't make them a bad company," Touhy said."

I can see your point but i would question whether most of the people who were up in arms about the CFA comment and called for the boycott gave CFA's charity activities a moment's thought. I also wonder, what organizations have they donated to (sincere question as i have no idea)?

And i love how these people above seem to believe that you can't be all self righteous about perceived intolerance of your beliefs if you are, in turn, being intolerant of other people's beliefs. Sometimes you need to support people when they say things you don't agree with just to show how important it is to be able to say things without worrying who agrees with you.

I agree with peoples right to say and support almost anything they want, but that doesn't mean I will be giving them any of my money.

[USU78]

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

KevinG:

I have no love for the oil companies,

Why?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

According to wikipedia (which I take with a grain of salt but this claim does have some references attached). I certainly wouldn't say its evil but I certainly don't expect supporters of gay marriage to be happy to see their money indirectly filtered to these organizations.

That is the best people have? So he gave money to people who gave money to other people and yet he is to blame for it? And even if it is so. So what, is this not America were we have a right to spend our money how we want? I will be going to Chick Fillet. Is that bad?

[sjdawg]

That is the best people have? So he gave money to people who gave money to other people and yet he is to blame for it? And even if it is so. So what, is this not America were we have a right to spend our money how we want? I will be going to Chick Fillet. Is that bad?

NO, it isn't bad at all. If the causes that Chick-Fil-A supports are congruent with your beliefs then I hope that you do support them. If they support causes that conflict with your personal beliefs then you may want to think twice about spending your money there.

Edited August 1, 2012 by sjdawg