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

[smac97]

Here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/30/chick-fil-a-latest-example-of-how-same-sex-marriage-threatens-religious-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

[Zakuska]

Yes.

I think I might just eat some more Chik'n today for lunch.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Zakuska

[CV75]

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

I would like to see examples of this kind of ostracizing of companies led by proponents of same-sex marriage. Or examples of the same kind of ostracizing of companies led by proponents of other unpopular agenda. It would be interesting to compare the actual contexts and dynamics.

It is not same-sex "marriage" per se that is a threat to religious freedom (it is only an affront to most religious beliefs and practices); it is the way in which it is promoted and justified, and the way the legal and rightful expression of religious freedom is punished by organized proponents.

[wenglund]

Haven't there also been attempts to discriminately silence and deny tax exempt status to institutions that hold to the traditional definition of marriage, and this by the same people raising the hue and cry about rights and discrimination?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2012 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

I would like to see examples of this kind of ostracizing of companies led by proponents of same-sex marriage. Or examples of the same kind of ostracizing of companies led by proponents of other unpopular agenda. It would be interesting to compare the actual contexts and dynamics.

It is not same-sex "marriage" per se that is a threat to religious freedom (it is only an affront to most religious beliefs and practices); it is the way in which it is promoted and justified, and the way the legal and rightful expression of religious freedom is punished by organized proponents.

I agree that the alderman's threats were wrong. In the absence of any discrimination against gay customers or gay employees, its not the job of government or politicians to police speech.

However, if you own a business, and you say something (or make a political contribution) that offends part of your customer, they have every right to refuse to shop at your store, and they have the right to encourage other not to shop at your store. I believe NOM is trying to push a boycott of starbucks. Good for them.

That is a what free speech is all about.

Wake me up when one you actually expresses support for free speech, the contents of which you find personally offensive. Otherwise I am not impressed by your "principled" position.

There are churches, after all that support gay marriage. None of you seem the least bit troubled by legislation hindering the "freedom" of those churches to marry their gay members.

[KevinG]

I already enjoyed a chicken biscuit this morning. Freedom of speech is delicious.

[thesometimesaint]

Any institution can discriminate as much as it likes against its patrons What makes the difference is the public accommodations laws. A restaurant such as Chic-Fil-A is by definition a public accommodation. Further individuals can organize a protest/decline to purchase/ or influence others not to, any business/products they want.

That doesn't mean I agree with SS marriage.

Edited August 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Jaybear]

Haven't there also been attempts to discriminately silence and deny tax exempt status to institutions that hold to the traditional definition of marriage, and this by the same people raising the hue and cry about rights and discrimination?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah. What is your point.

Some people on my side of the debate want to silence people on your side of the debate by shaming your side in the court of public opinion.

That fact that you and other here are constantly crying about it, suggest that its working.

So, what's wrong with that? If you own a business, think what you want, but its just stupid to offend your customers. Either with huckabee's support, I don' think many companies are going to follow the Chick filet a model.

Likewise, if liberals want to pursue the legislation that protects gays from discrimination in hiring and in receiving business services, that also strike me as a legitimate and worthwhile goal, fully consistent with liberal principles.

I think the problem here is not inconsistency, but is that you truly don't understand liberal principles.

[Jaybear]

I already enjoyed a chicken biscuit this morning. Freedom of speech is delicious.

Good for you. Those who boycott are also expressing freedom of speech.

If your side wins this argument in the court of public opinion, more business will insult gay customers to attract business from people like you. Somehow, I don't think this business model will catch on.

Most companies today seem to prefer not to offend thier gay customer and employees.

[bluebell]

I agree that the alderman's threats were wrong. In the absence of any discrimination against gay customers or gay employees, its not the job of government or politicians to police speech.

However, if you own a business, and you say something (or make a political contribution) that offends part of your customer, they have every right to refuse to shop at your store, and they have the right to encourage other not to shop at your store. I believe NOM is trying to push a boycott of starbucks. Good for them.

That is a what free speech is all about.

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).

[Libs]

To be fair to both sides, there should be no discrimination towards businesses who hold unpopular religious beliefs, as far as allowing them a business license in a particular area. But, neither should that public business be allowed to discriminate against whole groups of people, based on the business owners religious beliefs (and I don't believe Chik-fil-a does that?), so no reason to withhold a business license. But, in the case of the photography studio, they are discriminating against a particular group and that is illegal and has been for along time. Nothing new in the law (whether or not gay marriage is legal has nothing to do with the current laws already in place)...and they (the photographers) should have known that.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Libs

[KevinG]

Good for you. Those who boycott are also expressing freedom of speech.

If your side wins this argument in the court of public opinion, more business will insult gay customers to attract business from people like you. Somehow, I don't think this business model will catch on.

Most companies today seem to prefer not to offend thier gay customer and employees.

The problem I have with this particular boycott is that Dan Cathy's personal remark acknowledging he supports traditional marriage was not a corporate policy. In fact Chick-fil-a has a corporate policy of not discriminating in hiring practices based on sexual preference and they have a good track record of treating all employees with dignity.

It did succeed in Chick-fil-a executives being silenced from giving personal opinions in the press.

So when does the boycott of middle eastern oil companies start because their governments execute gays?

Edited August 1, 2012 by KevinG

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

I have no love for the oil companies, but as long as I need to buy their products, I'm between a rock and a hard place.

[Jaybear]

But I think if you do that, you need to acknowledge 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).

Technically, you are not forcing them to agree with you. That's pure hyperbole.

Otherwise, being "intolerrant" towards bigotry is not something I lose sleep over.

The problem I have with this particular boycott is that Dan Cathy's personal remark acknowledging he supports traditional marriage was not a corporate policy. In fact Chick-fil-a has a corporate policy of not discriminating in hiring practices based on sexual preference and they have a good track record of treating all employees with dignity.

CFR. Please show me this corporate policy.

Moreover, Cathy uses profits to support antigay politicians and causes.

So when does the boycott of middle eastern oil companies start because they execute gays?

If, for example, Shell Oil company executed gays, I would not buy gas from a Shell Oil station. I take it, since you are enjoying your chicken sandwitch, if that were the case, you would go out of your way to buy Shell gasoline.

[CV75]

Wake me up

That is an understatement--since every dialogue I’ve had with ends up with you concluding it a generational issue (how slow to progress and unimaginative!), I’m not going to bother! Plus you can’t seem to wrap your mind around what I actually post!

[USU78]

The problem I have with this particular boycott is that Dan Cathy's personal remark acknowledging he supports traditional marriage was not a corporate policy. In fact Chick-fil-a has a corporate policy of not discriminating in hiring practices based on sexual preference and they have a good track record of treating all employees with dignity.

It did succeed in Chick-fil-a executives being silenced from giving personal opinions in the press.

So when does the boycott of middle eastern oil companies start because their governments execute gays?

Because it's about the drama and the power that flows from the drama.

It doesn't matter that it was a set up from the get-go here.

It only matters that politically correct folks get to flex their muscles and slap others around.

[wenglund]

Yeah. What is your point.

Don't pretend you don't know when it is obvious from your post that you did.

Some people on my side of the debate want to silence people on your side of the debate by shaming your side in the court of public opinion.

Yes...I have seen the lame attempts and the invariably ironic backfire effect. But, this is beside the point of the thread.

That fact that you and other here are constantly crying about it, suggest that its working.

You evidently have a remarkable capacity for self deception. Our gleefully pointing out rank the hypocrisies and swillish streams of banality pumped daily from your propaganda mill, can hardly be considered "crying".

So, what's wrong with that? If you own a business, think what you want, but its just stupid to offend your customers. Either with huckabee's support, I don' think many companies are going to follow the Chick filet a model.

As expected, your view is upside-down. The unethical actions of a liberal alderman and mayor attempting to foist their perverse political views onto local business, has actually energized the customer base, and may even have created new customers. The market place and the public are getting wise to Chicago-style shakedowns and political corruption, and are becoming increasingly mobilized against it.

The good news is, people like you on your side, are insipid enough to think this kind of under-handed political bullying and sham works.

I think the problem here is not inconsistency, but is that you truly don't understand liberal principles.

Again, not surprisingly, you got it upside-down. But by all means, keep it up--particularly under the ironic guess of supposedly bringing shame on us. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2012 by wenglund

[CV75]

I would still like to see (credible) examples of this kind of ostracizing of companies led by proponents of same-sex marriage. Or examples of the same kind of ostracizing of companies led by proponents of other unpopular agenda. It would be interesting to compare the actual contexts and dynamics.

[altersteve]

All this Chick-fil-A talk is making me hungry. Methinks I'll get a deluxe spicy chicken sandwich and a medium order of delicious waffle fries for lunch today.

[Bob Crockett]

I have a paper weeks away from publication in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion which points out that the California federal district court judge who struck down Proposition 8 did so, in part, because of the religious arguments advanced against it.

My long and boring paper argues that it is an affront to the constitutional right of free speech to strike legislation because religious folk used Biblical argument to support the legislation. The paper further argues that when one minority, here a religious grouping, seeks legislation to imperil the civil rights of another minority, here the rights to marriage extended by the California Supreme Court, the merits of that legislation should be judged on principles other than whether the first minority was religious people.

Under the principle of the separation of church and state, the state has to ignore the religious affiliation of advocates of legislation. If the effect of legislation is to combine religion and state (and, perhaps an argument might be made that morals legislation, including marriage, divorce) effects that combination, then the analysis looks to that combination and not to the folks who used their free speech to get the legislation passed.

Thus, by way of example, if the Catholic Church obtained a law requiring a state to pay for the textbooks of children in parochial schools, the fact that the Church sought that legislation is immaterial. The fact that a Church is being favored by that legislation is not.

So, turning to the marriage debate, the analysis should be whether the revocation of marriage rights to gays is a legitimate exercise of state power (under either rational basis or strict scrutiny) and not whether a religion sponsored legislation.

The same issues are present in the legal discrimination against religious-based groups who advocate against same-sex marriage.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

I agree that the alderman's threats were wrong. In the absence of any discrimination against gay customers or gay employees, its not the job of government or politicians to police speech.

However, if you own a business, and you say something (or make a political contribution) that offends part of your customer, they have every right to refuse to shop at your store, and they have the right to encourage other not to shop at your store. I believe NOM is trying to push a boycott of starbucks. Good for them.

That is a what free speech is all about.

Wake me up when one you actually expresses support for free speech, the contents of which you find personally offensive. Otherwise I am not impressed by your "principled" position.

Huh? Since when have any of us indicated opposition to free speech? Where did you get the idea that we don't support it?

There are churches, after all that support gay marriage. None of you seem the least bit troubled by legislation hindering the "freedom" of those churches to marry their gay members.

I am unaware of any such legislation, so I'll CFR you on this point.

It is one thing for the government to prohibits a church to officiate in a same-sex "wedding," but quite another for the government to not recognize the legal validity of that "wedding." There is legislation as to the latter, but not - to my knowledge - the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

Technically, you are not forcing them to agree with you.

I said forcing someone to agree with you upon pain of financial destruction.

That's pure hyperbole.

More like poor reading comprehension.

Otherwise, being "intolerrant" towards bigotry is not something I lose sleep over.

I really don't doubt that you wouldn't lose sleep over bullying people that you disagree with. I didn't post what i did in some passive/aggressive attempt to make you or anyone else feel shame over it. I never believed for a second that would see such bullying as a bad thing.

Just own up to it. Don't pretend it's about fighting bigotry or that it's coming from some moral high ground. It's pure intolerance for beliefs (not actions, but sincere beliefs) you don't like and it's no different than a Christian who tries to put a company out of business because the owner is an atheist, or a pagan.

It's legal, and it's an option to get what you want. If you really do believe the end justifies the means, then there's no reason to shy away from doing the dirty work it takes to achieve your goals.

[KevinG]

CFR. Please show me this corporate policy.

http://www.chick-fil...=LGBT-statement

Moreover, Cathy uses profits to support antigay politicians and causes.

CFR yourself. Here is what they support:

http://www.chick-fil...e=winshape_2012

http://www.chick-fil...ponsorship_2012

If, for example, Shell Oil company executed gays, I would not buy gas from a Shell Oil station. I take it, since you are enjoying your chicken sandwitch, if that were the case, you would go out of your way to buy Shell gasoline.

ARAMCO is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Government. They execute homosexuals in Saudi Arabia. This is just one example of how this works.

I go out of my way to buy at American owned gas stations. I would love it if our current administration and the watermelon lobby (green on the outside and red on the inside) would free up our own American resources so we can wean ourselves from dependency on foreign influences that are not friendly to the freedoms of gays or the religious right.

Edited August 1, 2012 by KevinG

[USU78]

My long and boring paper argues that it is an affront to the constitutional right of free speech to strike legislation because religious folk used Biblical argument to support the legislation. The paper further argues that when one minority, here a religious grouping, seeks legislation to imperil the civil rights of another minority, here the rights to marriage extended by the California Supreme Court, the merits of that legislation should be judged on principles other than whether the first minority was religious people.

Afraid your reasoning fails here: it was the MAJORITY of Californians who IN PLEBECITE voted in favor of banning "gay" marriage. Arguments in favor and against may well have contained a religious element, but having your side win on, at least in part, a religious argument does not silence the voices or destroy the rights of those on the other side of the argument. Indeed, if your view is accepted, then no person who professes religion may ever speak for or against legislation on pain of having that legislation invalidated because of the beliefs of [some of] its proponents.

[smac97]

Yeah. What is your point.

Uh, that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious freedom, because advocates of same-sex marriage want to punish religious groups for opposing same-sex marriage.

That, I think, is the point.

Some people on my side of the debate want to silence people on your side of the debate by shaming your side in the court of public opinion.

And that is all well and good. The marketplace of ideas and all that.

But note what Wade is talking about: "Haven't there also been attempts to discriminately silence and deny tax exempt status to institutions that hold to the traditional definition of marriage?"

So the question in this thread isn't about "shaming" our side. It is about your[/] side attempting to use the force of law to punish people who disagree with you and yours.

That fact that you and other here are constantly crying about it, suggest that its working.

The fact that you are attacking a strawman instead of what Wade actually said, and what this thread is actually about, suggests that you are missing the point.

So, what's wrong with that? If you own a business, think what you want, but its just stupid to offend your customers. Either with huckabee's support, I don' think many companies are going to follow the Chick filet a model.

This thread is not about people saying things that offend customers and having their businesses suffer a financial detriment as a result. That is all well and good.

This thread is about people on your side of the fence attempting - with some success, apparently - to use the coercive power of government to punish a business for the content of its owner's constitutionally-protected speech.

You do oppose that, right?

Likewise, if liberals want to pursue the legislation that protects gays from discrimination in hiring and in receiving business services, that also strike me as a legitimate and worthwhile goal, fully consistent with liberal principles.

Whether it's "fully consistent" with the Constitution, however, is the point of this thread.

I think the problem here is not inconsistency, but is that you truly don't understand liberal principles.

I think the problem here is not a failure to understand liberal principles, but concern that those principles are leading to unconstitutional results (like a liberal pol punishing a business who disagree's with the pol's stance on same-sex marriage).

Thanks,

-Smac