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

[wenglund]

I think that treehugger made a generalization which cannot be supported. This can happen at times during the heat of the moment.

I suspect that it was a lame attempt to manufacture an equivalence presumably to be pressed into serves as a tu quoque. But I can't say for sure. Whatever the case, if TH doesn't honor the CFR, then s/he needs to take back the statement. And, hopefully, this will also give her/him some encouragement to speak more responsibly and reasonably in the future.

Besides, TH is not shy about issuing CFRs, and so I thought I would return the favor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

Besides, TH is not shy about issuing CFRs, and so I thought I would return the favor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is true. When one is engaged in debate, one must be careful of blanket statements made in the heat of the moment.

[Libs]

One of my LDS friends posted this on Facebook. I thought it was very well said.

http://rachelheldevans.com/chick-fil-a

[wenglund]

I am sorry, but this is the most hypocritical statement I have seen all day. And I have seen quite a few on this thread. You have been ranting for 11 pages now that the boycott agains CFA was anti religious and an attack on Christian beliefs. When in fact it is a boycott against CFA because of their political contributions to organizations that actively campaign against gay marriage.

Wrong. What Selek and others of us (including Smac in the OP) have been "ranting for 11 pages" about is the attempted extortion and malfeasance of certain public officials against CFA and other entities. The boycott that has been going on for some time now, is of little or no concern to us. Please read and inform yourself before spouting off. Get your facts straight and apologize for falsely accusing Selek of hypocrisy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Libs]

So...you object to an actual bombing, but not to a terroristic threat?

I'm kidding- I know where you stand. What you will have a hard time doing is convincing me that your stance is typical of "leftists".

I still recall the general approval with which the Left (both here on this board and elsewhere) greeted the threats and acts of violence and intimidation in the wake of Prop 8.

Demands that the LDS Church (not exclusively, but moreso than others) be punished by the State for daring to support Prop 8 were widespread and enthusiastic.

Crank and threatening calls made to homes, businesses, and employers of Prop 8 supporters were both lauded and justified.

Acts of property destruction and threats against homeowners who displayed Prop 8 signs were met with a "ho-hum, they had it coming" mentality- just as certain Leftists on this board have tried to justify the assault on Chick-Fil-A.

I agree- but I then again, I don't recall any widespread condemnation of the fake anthrax letters sent to LDS temples, nor to violent acts such as invading and disrupting Church meetings, assault, vandalism, and other terroristic threats.

Do I believe that "Leftists" or "pro-homosexual" groups should be held collectively responsible for the bomb threat or the previous terroristic acts?

No.

But you haven't given me any particular reason to think you collectively disapprove of them, either.

I live in a "lefty world", selek. Most are very peace loving and do not condone violence, anymore than you do. These are the people who protest wars...remember?

Edit: There was a lot of violence on both sides of the prop 8 debate. I was out in the streets for that one and even at the LA Temple, my daughters were threatened by members of the church. I could hardly believe it, but it happened. I think everyone got a little carried away during those times.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Libs

[wenglund]

One of my LDS friends posted this on Facebook. I thought it was very well said.

http://rachelheldevans.com/chick-fil-a

I appreciate the tone and kindly intent of that piece. However, among many problems I had with what she said, she came across to me as way overly wrought with worry and concern and seemed more than a little overly-protective. I also thought it ironic (I am being charitable here) that she pleaded against posting pictures to facebook in support CFA, while brazenly proclaiming on facebook that she, herself, is boycotting CFA. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

I live in a "lefty world", selek. Most are very peace loving and do not condone violence, anymore than you do. These are the people who protest wars...remember?

They are also the people responsible for how many deaths and how much property damage at Zuccotti Park and downtown Oakland?

Edit: There was a lot of violence on both sides of the prop 8 debate.

I have never been impressed with the "your side does it too!" defense- particularly when there is zero documentary evidence to back it up.

Remind me again- how many SSM advocates were drummed out of work because their bosses received harassing phone calls?

How many pro-SSM businesses were forced to close their doors because of thugs camped outside their entrances shouting profanities?

How many SSM cultural/recreational halls were spray painted and or torched?

How many SSM meetings were raided by radicals throwing urine, human feces, and desecrating both places of worship and private religious rites?

How many SSM gathering places were spray-painted with swastikas?

How many received fake anthrax letters?

Given the adoring coverage layered on Prop 8 supporters, they would have been beside themselves with outrage had this been the case.

I believe you when you say that you and yours are not violent radicals.

But the record shows beyond reasonable doubt that you cannot make that claim for your movement as a whole.

Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

I appreciate the tone and kindly intent of that piece. However, among many problems I had with what she said, she came across to me as way overly wrought with worry and concern and seemed more than a little overly-protective. I also thought it ironic (I am being charitable here) that she pleaded against posting pictures to facebook in support CFA, while brazenly proclaiming on facebook that she, herself, is boycotting CFA. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think it's so much what you support or don't support, that she was talking about, as it was the "in your face" attitudes about it. Notice she also appealed to gay marriage supporters, not to do things (like cross dressing, kiss-ins and other general intimidation and "acting out" tactics). She is making a plea that both sides remain civil and respectful, in their behavior towards one another. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said.

[Libs]

I have never been impressed with the "your side does it too!" defense- particularly when there is zero documentary evidence to back it up.

Neither have I, selek (been impressed with that tactic), but something I like even less is the "we are better than them" attitude. That's pure bunk and I don't take kindly to it.

As for the violence I spoke of, I know that for a fact, as my daughters experienced it first hand. I was also intimidated and insulted by a some pro-Prop 8 protesters, on a picket line...not only demeaning towards me, but made some racial insults towards my black granddaughter. Those are facts I know to be true, first hand. Not saying those incidents were typical, as most protesters on BOTH sides were very civil. But, there were some very nasty people on BOTH sides of the debate.

[treehugger]

To sum up the thread, boycotts are acceptable, whether it is a religious group calling for boycotts of lowes, homedepot, or store which doe not say "merry Christmas" or ssm advocates boycotting a business whose CEO espoused a view against ssm. The line is crossed when a person on either side of an issue uses their Government office to oppress the object of the boycott.

Question: Is it acceptable for the boycotters to ask the Government to oppress the boycottee?

Edited August 2, 2012 by treehugger

[california boy]

Wrong. What Selek and others of us (including Smac in the OP) have been "ranting for 11 pages" about is the attempted extortion and malfeasance of certain public officials against CFA and other entities. The boycott that has been going on for some time now, is of little or no concern to us. Please read and inform yourself before spouting off. Get your facts straight and apologize for falsely accusing Selek of hypocrisy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't found a single person on this thread that supports those misguided political officials that think it is a good idea to deny someone a business license because they have opposing political views. Can you find anyone on this thread. I certainly do not support him. This is the same position that some politicians took regarding allowing a mosque in NYC. That was just as wrong as I am sure you and others on this thread would agree.

[wenglund]

I don't think it's so much what you support or don't support, that she was talking about, as it was the "in your face" attitudes about it. Notice she also appealed to gay marriage supporters, not to do things (like cross dressing, kiss-ins and other general intimidation and "acting out" tactics). She is making a plea that both sides remain civil and respectful, in their behavior towards one another. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said.

How was her brazen public declaration of her plans to boycott any less "in your face" than a photo? There is little difference in my mind between learning from a facebook photo that someone is supporting CFA than learning from a facebook post that someone is boycotting CFA. If she was all that concerned about protecting people's feelings, then consistency would demand that she be silent on her facebook page about her boycott--not that it matters all that much to me one way or the other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

Neither have I, selek (been impressed with that tactic), but something I like even less is the "we are better than them" attitude. That's pure bunk and I don't take kindly to it.

Ironically, no one supporting Chick-Fil-A here has espoused such an attitude.

Others cannot make the same claim.

You argued that most leftists "would be horrified" by the terroristic tactics used against Chick-Fil-A.

I countered that you were unlikely to convince me that this was the case, as "your" movement has historically been very tolerant of such tactics.

Because this is a digression from the purposes of the thread, I'm going to drop it- but the fact is you have offered nothing substantive to counter my charge.

It is a matter of historical fact that the Leftist movement has been very tolerant of such tactics in pursuit of their agenda.

[selek1]

To sum up the thread, boycotts are acceptable, whether it is a religious group calling for boycotts of lowes, homedepot, or store which doe not say "merry Christmas" or ssm advocates boycotting a business whose CEO espoused a view against ssm. The line is crossed when a person on either side of an issue uses their Government office to oppress the object of the boycott.

Question: Is it acceptable for the boycotters to ask the Government to oppress the boycottee?

You mean outfits such as the nascent "Leftists against Capitalization and Punctuation" brigade?

As a matter of fact, no- it is not.

The only time the government should be involved is where one side or the other (or both) is in violation of the law.

Otherwise government should be nuetral and silent- they are our servant, not our masters.

Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1

[wenglund]

I haven't found a single person on this thread that supports those misguided political officials that think it is a good idea to deny someone a business license because they have opposing political views. Can you find anyone on this thread.

If I had claimed that there were people on this thread who supported those actions, then you would have reason to ask me that question. As it is, I haven't, and so you don't. You are wrong to insinuate that I had, and you were wrong about what we have been "ranting" about for 11 pages. You have a knack for being wrong, and you ought to do something about that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Ironically, no one supporting Chick-Fil-A here has espoused such an attitude.

Others cannot make the same claim.

You argued that most leftists "would be horrified" by the terroristic tactics used against Chick-Fil-A.

I countered that you were unlikely to convince me that this was the case, as "your" movement has historically been very tolerant of such tactics.

Because this is a digression from the purposes of the thread, I'm going to drop it- but the fact is you have offered nothing substantive to counter my charge.

It is a matter of historical fact that the Leftist movement has been very tolerant of such tactics in pursuit of their agenda.

To the contrary, you have offered absolutely no evidence for me to "counter". No evidence that "one side does it more than the other".

You are doing exactly what you claim to dislike.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

How was her brazen public declaration of her plans to boycott any less "in your face" than a photo? There is little difference in my mind between learning from a facebook photo that someone is supporting CFA than learning from a facebook post that someone is boycotting CFA. If she was all that concerned about protecting people's feelings, then consistency would demand that she be silent on her facebook page about her boycott--not that it matters all that much to me one way or the other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Brazen declarations? I think you need to go back and read again. You are putting in hyperbole that is not in that article. She never said people should be "silent". She said, they should remain respectful.

[Calm]

Neither have I, selek (been impressed with that tactic), but something I like even less is the "we are better than them" attitude. That's pure bunk and I don't take kindly to it.

As for the violence I spoke of, I know that for a fact, as my daughters experienced it first hand. I was also intimidated and insulted by a some pro-Prop 8 protesters, on a picket line...not only demeaning towards me, but made some racial insults towards my black granddaughter. Those are facts I know to be true, first hand. Not saying those incidents were typical, as most protesters on BOTH sides were very civil. But, there were some very nasty people on BOTH sides of the debate.

It is just so wrong when this happens...and if anyone was halfway aware, surely they would realize that in the long run they are alienating people from their cause and just cementing negative opinions even if they think intimidation works short term. This is not the way to get acceptance, only fear. Edited August 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Brazen declarations? I think you need to go back and read again. You are putting in hyperbole that is not in that article. She never said people should be "silent". She said, they should remain respectful.

You can nit-pick the word "brazen" all you want, but it doesn't change my point. Your friend not only publicly and proudly declared on facebook that she was boycotting CFA, but she went even further to explain why, and used some rather controversial language in doing so. This is no different, in principle, than someone posting their photo supporting CFA. If anything her going the extra step in explaining why she is boycotting, may reasonably be considered more "in-your-face" than the hypothesized photos--again, not that it matters all that much to me (I am okay with her post and the photos). I just think some people are more than a little unaware of their hypocrisy. And, I would think that if she is all that concerned about what others may think and feel, then once it is pointed out to her, she may want to quickly remove the potentially offending portion of her statements.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

If I had claimed that there were people on this thread who supported those actions, then you would have reason to ask me that question. As it is, I haven't, and so you don't. You are wrong to insinuate that I had, and you were wrong about what we have been "ranting" about for 11 pages. You have a knack for being wrong, and you ought to do something about that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So just what are you ranting about for 12 pages if everyone agrees with you? What is your point that requires your serial responses?

[Libs]

It is just so wrong when this happens...and if anyone was halfway aware, surely they would realize that in the long run they are alienating people from their cause and just cementing negative opinions even if they think intimidation works short term. This is not the way to get acceptance, only fear.

Exactly. It really is sad. I think, sometimes, people get so wrapped up in being right that they just cannot humble themselves enough to see another person's pov. I know this to be true, mainly from my own experience.

I, almost always, try to see both sides of a question, but when things get a little heated, it's difficult to maintain objectivity. Then, I just want to punch someone out. (Maybe selek is right! LOL)

[selek1]

(Maybe selek is right! LOL)

Unlike you violent leftists , I have a socially exceptable outlet for my deep-seated rage and frustration.

(Although if Mayor Bloomberg has his way, I might be jailed for crimes against humanity).

Tonight's stress reliever was homemade New York-style cheesecake w/cinnamon graham cracker crust and heavy cream/brown sugar caramel sauce.

Since I had leftovers, my roommate's lunch has been packed with fresh Granny Smith apple wedges, graham crackers, and caramel.

For tomorrow, I am leaning heavily towards a peppermint fondant truffle (kinda like the filling in a York peppermint pattie) rolled in chocolate powder and crushed candy canes.

Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

Unlike you violent leftists , I have a socially exceptable outlet for my deep-seated rage and frustration.

(Although if Mayor Bloomberg has his way, I might be jailed for crimes against humanity).

Tonight's stress reliever was homemade New York-style cheesecake w/cinnamon graham cracker crust and heavy cream/brown sugar caramel sauce.

Since I had leftovers, my roommate's lunch has been packed with fresh Granny Smith apple wedges, graham crackers, and caramel.

For tomorrow, I am leaning heavily towards a peppermint fondant truffle (kinda like the filling in a York peppermint pattie) rolled in chocolate powder and crushed candy canes.

Well, I think it's criminal, not to share that cheesecake with me! One of my most favorite things in the world! And that truffle sounds to die for!!! You sound like quite the baker, selek. I'd be happy to take some of that off your hands! And, then, I might not have to hurt you.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Libs

[selek1]

Well, I think it's criminal, not to share that cheesecake with me! One of my most favorite things in the world! And that truffle sounds to die for!!! You sound like quite the baker, selek. I'd be happy to take some of that off your hands! And, then, I might not have to hurt you.

Surrender the chocolate and no one gets hurt?

How do you feel about key lime cheesecake?

[Storm Rider]

Unlike you violent leftists , I have a socially exceptable outlet for my deep-seated rage and frustration.

(Although if Mayor Bloomberg has his way, I might be jailed for crimes against humanity).

Tonight's stress reliever was homemade New York-style cheesecake w/cinnamon graham cracker crust and heavy cream/brown sugar caramel sauce.

Since I had leftovers, my roommate's lunch has been packed with fresh Granny Smith apple wedges, graham crackers, and caramel.

For tomorrow, I am leaning heavily towards a peppermint fondant truffle (kinda like the filling in a York peppermint pattie) rolled in chocolate powder and crushed candy canes.

a socially "exceptable" (to exclude or to leave out). Hmm, let's go with acceptable. Never your when you mean you're. Those are my fatherly corrections for today. And if Dad does nto get the first piece of that cheese cake you both will go to your rooms and pray until you feel like giving it to dad.