KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Why would there be? These people were in agreement with the business they were patronizing. Completely different scenario. I know first hand that just about anyone can get nasty, under certain circumstances. Going to buy a sandwich is not a good example.If only the occupy wall street crowd or the weather underground or the sisters of perpetual indulgence could find as positive an outlet for their complaints.ON the contrary going to buy a sandwich is a fantastic example of someone doing something positive instead of getting in the face of those they disagree with.
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 It is the motives they assigned to the long lines that was inaccurate. All last night I heard from the news how this was an anti-gay marriage protest. It was not. It was a pro free speech protest. Amen and amen.There have been a number of video and article links offered throughout the thread which show that many people showed up in order to support Chick-Fil-A regardless of their personal views on gay marriage.They were not responding to Chick-Fil-A's corporate views or policies- but to the tyrannical attempt to criminalize dissent.That was the original CFR that no one has yet answered despite your protests that you have and "others do it too".Still outta rep points. +1
Libs Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Can you please see that homosexual marriage, in addition to being politicized, is a moral issue that churches and those with religious convictions should be able to speak out on without fear for their safety and attacks on their livelihood.I'm sorry, but I just have to say this, Ray. I can see and understand what you are saying, and I agree that no one's safety should ever be attacked. OTOH, can you see how the marginalizing of gays, due to a belief that their orientation is "sinful", has put their life in danger, untold of times, and has also, often, been a threat to their livelihood and their very lives, if they are out of the closet? And, that doesn't even speak to the horrendous suicide rate, particularly among gay teens. This is very serious business, which is why so many get very emotional about it. Edited August 2, 2012 by Libs 1
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 No- Jaybear was implying that the you would go out of your way to support and endorse a company that was executing homosexuals.It was a hateful, loathsome accusation to make.Oh I guess I missed that. My intolerant conservative mindset read that statement in the most charitable way.
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Oh I guess I missed that. My intolerant conservative mindset read that statement in the most charitable way.And now you see what hateful anti-gay fanaticism can do to an otherwise respectable human being . 1
ERayR Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) No, I am not suggesting any of that, selek. Violence (including violent and hateful words) is always wrong, IMO. I still see no similarity between a one day sandwich eating event and months of street protest by (mostly) young liberals. I don't like the conclusions you are trying to draw from that, and I think you are very wrong to generalize that way.I'm sorry, but I just have to say this, Ray. I can see and understand what you are saying, and I agree that no one's safety should ever be attacked. OTOH, can you see how the marginalizing of gays, due to a belief that their orientation is "sinful", has put their life in danger, untold of times, and has also, often, been a threat to their livelihood and their very lives, if they are out of the closet? And, that doesn't even speak to the horrendous suicide rate, particularly among gay teens. This is very serious business, which is why so many get very emotional about it.You have conflated homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. For some reason this happens a lot from that side of the discussion. None, that I remember, have said that the orientation was sinful. What I, and they, have said is that the behavior involve in acting on that orientation is sinful. Edited August 2, 2012 by ERayR
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry, but I just have to say this, Ray. I can see and understand what you are saying, and I agree that no one's safety should ever be attacked. OTOH, can you see how the marginalizing of gays, due to a belief that their orientation is "sinful", has put their life in danger, untold of times, and has also, often, been a threat to their livelihood and their very lives, if they are out of the closet? And, that doesn't even speak to the horrendous suicide rate, particularly among gay teens. This is very serious business, which is why so many get very emotional about it.And yet another great assertion never questioned by the enlightened classes. Can you show me a study that shows the high suicide rate among gay teens is indeed due to marginalization of gays in our society? I'll give you a hint: has the rate gone down as popular media and school groups increase their acceptance and celebration of gay lifestyles and people? Here in the reddest of states my Mormon kids caught a lot more flak for their beliefs than the gay kids in their school. Ironically my Mormon son befriended a large group of gay students and they defended his right to believe as he did.I hesitate to add a CFR given the large number of assertions remaining unanswered in this thread.For the record I am against bullying and would seek the harshest punishment for any teen harassing someone for their sexual orientation or any other "different" thing about them. A good friend of mine and a state senator introduced anti-bullying legislation that was passed by the state congress. I applauded it.It is for this reason I get very testy when accused of being intolerant or hateful for my private political views or my belief that government needs to stay out of private opinions. Edited August 2, 2012 by KevinG 2
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry, but I just have to say this, Ray. I can see and understand what you are saying, and I agree that no one's safety should ever be attacked. OTOH, can you see how the marginalizing of gays, due to a belief that their orientation is "sinful", has put their life in danger, untold of times, and has also, often, been a threat to their livelihood and their very lives, if they are out of the closet? And, that doesn't even speak to the horrendous suicide rate, particularly among gay teens. This is very serious business, which is why so many get very emotional about it.I wonder, though, what we'd find if we compared the number of homosexuals who died due to anti-gay violence with the number of homosexuals killed in domestic violence incidents with their lovers, due to drug overdoses, or from disease contracted through risky sexual behaviors.If I remember the numbers correctly (and I may not), the average lifespan of a homosexual man is almost thirty years shorter than that of a heterosexual male.Can the case really be made that frank criticism of the homosexual lifestyle is more destructive than tacit acceptance of that lifestyle?The problem with the suicide rate is that correlation and causation are two separate issues. Credible science has indicated that homosexual tendencies correlate with a higher incidence of mental illness in general. Suicide rates among homosexuals have actually gone up in countries where homosexual conduct has been deemed normal by the State and gay marriage sanctioned as a legitimate choice.Blaming critics of homosexual behavior for suicides makes for a trite bit of demagoguery and well-poisoning, but it doesn't do a darn thing to save even one life.As to the threat to livelihood nonsense, gays are far more affluent on average, and have significantly greater measures of tangible wealth and disposable income.It is also a red-herring.No one here is advocating for discrimination.No one here is suggesting that homosexuals be jailed, or otherwise deprived of their Constitutional rights.We simply object to radical homosexuals and their pet politicians trying to criminalize dissent from their agenda. Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1 1
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Just in case it was missed in the first 15 pages of "ranting and intolerence."Can someone (anyone) show statements or actions from Chick-fil-a and affiliated organizations (Winshape) that are in fact anti-gay as opposed to pro-Biblical or pro-traditional marraige? 1
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 ...as is the equivocating. We will see how well behaved and how large Friday's protests are in comparison. Not that the press will notice.Good report on that:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/02/huckabee-chick-fil-appreciation-day-beyond-anything-could-have-imagined/?intcmp=trending
tyler90az Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I ate at Chick fil a yesterday because I stand for free speech. Do not really care about the issue, just free speech.
GingerRed Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Just in case it was missed in the first 15 pages of "ranting and intolerence."Can someone (anyone) show statements or actions from Chick-fil-a and affiliated organizations (Winshape) that are in fact anti-gay as opposed to pro-Biblical or pro-traditional marraige?I agree Kevin..where are these supposed 'affiliations?' I wonder if Jaybear saw this article and thats why he was insistent about it...?http://www.huffingto...&comm_ref=falseI read the Chick-fl-A link someone posted about the organizations they support...didnt see one thing about any anti-gay support.Oh an another thing....if this is so 'wrong', then why haven't we seen any breaking news about hundreds of gay Chick-Fil-A employees quitting their jobs and walking out? They have been awfully silent through all this.Red Edited August 2, 2012 by GingerRed
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 It is the motives they assigned to the long lines that was inaccurate. All last night I heard from the news how this was an anti-gay marriage protest. It was not. It was a pro free speech protest. From Governor Huckabees original call for a "Chick-fil-a appreciation day" to the sentiments of those participating it was pro-free speech and freedom of association.Find me a statement from an actual participant in the protest that said they were there to oppose gay-marriage or a statement from Chick-fil-a and their representatives and affiliated organizations that is anti-gay marriage. That was the original CFR that no one has yet answered despite your protests that you have and "others do it too".I noticed that too. Nothing Cathy said was even close to Anti-Gay. He expressed his opnion on the definition of marriage. Nothing more nothing less.
Popular Post Mellybug Posted August 2, 2012 Popular Post Posted August 2, 2012 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.I haven't scanned through all of the conversation as it is many pages long at this point but, as a photographer, I'd like to address this particular aspect of the issue. I am not a lawyer and I do understand that as a business when you open your doors to serve the public you need to treat the public with equal respect and opportunity. In the case of the topic at hand, Chick-fil-A doesn't refuse to serve someone a meal based off of their orientation. However, not every situation is as cut and dried as serving food or selling shoes, etc. I truly believe that free speech/freedom of religion needs to be the core issue at consideration when it comes to services such as photography and other creators of art. It is NOT about discrimination in these cases but truly about religious practice and belief of the Artist, not the preferences of the customer. Let me explain.When I get hired to photograph someone's wedding or engagement I am not merely providing them with a cut and dried product already defined before they give me money. I am being hired to record their big event as an artist. The individual style and art of a photographer is often the difference in why a person hires one photographer or another--it is about the *photographer* as an *artist*. The ability to create technically sound images and act professionally is assumed and beyond that (budget considerations aside) it is about what the photographer brings to the table as a person that will be sharing their entire wedding day with them, in very close proximity and collaborating to make it as beautiful as possible.When I point my camera at my subjects I am not separating myself from what I see on the other side of my lens. I am looking to find the most beautiful and meaningful moment, light, composition and more to not just capture the moment happening but to evoke emotion and to share what it was like to be there. Sometimes amazing moments just unfold in front of the camera, but most times those amazing images are because I as the photographer have created a situation and an environment in which certain events can unfold which can then be translated beautifully into a frozen image. To do this I must be fully invested in what is going on in front of me; anything less and my work suffers incredibly in quality and I am then not providing the very service they came to me for in the first place----which is not just to snap a photo but to use my unique view on the world to create beauty out of their day.I (my artistic vision and my personality) am the true commodity while the prints are only the final deliverable. It should be obvious that the two cannot be separated--without one there is not the other. Why then should I not be able to turn down a wedding for a same sex couple when I personally am uncomfortable being in those situations where I not only have to watch but am expected to help create beauty and art out of something that I cannot find beauty in? I am not talking about the fact that they are happy together or committed to each other or even any of the other human/emotional elements of this discussion. Indeed, I have quite a few close friends who are gay, and neighbors next door who are wonderfully sweet and happen to be lesbian. I can and do very much enjoy to company of all of these people and am, as I said, good friends with them--many of whom I grew up with as friends and who feel like family to me. I am talking about the physical side of this. There is a LOT of physical expression of love at a wedding and this is as it should be. I will be very very honest here and say that it makes me extremely uncomfortable to watch men, in particular, kiss each other. It is a very physical reaction and I always always look away because I disagree with that act both socially (it makes me uncomfortable to watch) and morally. I cannot look away from it if I have been hired to shoot their wedding. Indeed, I am expected to celebrate it with them, to watch them *CONSTANTLY* throughout the day and even coax more of these actions out of them over and over again in various locations or sequences of events in an effort to create beautiful art out of something I fundamentally disagree with. This is not a case of a gay or lesbian couple giving each other a kiss as they pull through the drive through window to get their chicken. That is something I am only around momentarily and can politely avert my eyes from if I am working at a fast food chain. This is all day, and then countless hours editing and fine tuning after the day itself while I post process and enhance the color, skin, etc of the images in photoshop after.Speaking of editing, once that is included into the equation, an average wedding takes nearly 60 hours of work (industry average based off of various association member serveys). Sixty hours. It should be no surprise that photographers (and videographers, and painters, etc) are extremely visual people. Please know that we tend to be very very emotionally involved in what we create--it is one of the reasons we are notoriously bad at editing down and culling our own work to create a tight portfolio. How do you expect for the personal religious beliefs of a private citizen, who happens to be providing a public service, to NOT be an issue of religious freedom when you are talking about a job that will require them to immerse themselves into an event and way of life that they disagree with, to celebrate it and to create something beautiful out of it, to invest themselves enough to make art out of it (which again is the real reason individual photographers are hired over other photographers) for more than 60 hours. 60 helping to express, share, celebrate what they are morally and religiously opposed to......Serving chicken to a couple who happens to be gay is not something that religion comes into. Providing a service where you as the PERSON are the true commodity and are expected to immerse yourself into a situation you are religiously opposed to to create art supporting a subject you are religiously opposed to is very much an issue where the religious freedom of the one party should have at least as much protection as 'equality' of the other party. This is even more true when you factor in that photography is a LUXURY item. We are not talking about food, housing, medical care or other vitals of life. How then, should their wants in regards to hiring the artist of their choice override my constitutional rights to actually practice my religion and abstain from engaging activities that are against my religion. Again, this is NOT an issue of personal and business entity here having different rights because the business IS the artist and the two are completely inseparable. Why are my choices limited to LYING about why I'm turning them down as a client, get sued if I dare be honest enough to actually USE my constitutional rights to live in accordance to my beliefs, immerse myself against my will and beliefs in 60 or more hours of something so against my own values, or be forced to not pursue my passion and chosen way of earning a living because of fear that I'll end up in that situation?Why are their rights to hire ME specifically, more important than my constitutional rights to freedom of religion to not put myself in that situation and to free speech which should protect me enough to be able to politely say: "I am so sorry but I will not be able to be your wedding photographer. This is a big day for you and I am happy that you have both found someone you are so over the moon about. However I do not feel that I can accept this job in good faith. The quality of my photographs would suffer greatly from the fact that I am extremely uncomfortable watching the physical manifestations of your chosen lifestyle. This would interfere with my ability to create the emotionally and artistically strong images that drew you to my work in the first place. I cannot let you hire me when I do not believe that I will be able to deliver what you are looking for. I know your wedding is important to you and you deserve to have someone there to serve you and record your day who will see your day with the same beauty you do. Here is a list of photographers that I can recommend who I know will do a great job for you. I hope you have a wonderful and happy wedding day." ????It was probably their exact view of 'nothing new in the law' that got these photographers into trouble with the law---they believed because of the nature of the matter at hand, that they were indeed protected by the long standing law of constitutional amendments. 5
Tacenda Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 And yet another great assertion never questioned by the enlightened classes. Can you show me a study that shows the high suicide rate among gay teens is indeed due to marginalization of gays in our society? I'll give you a hint: has the rate gone down as popular media and school groups increase their acceptance and celebration of gay lifestyles and people? Here in the reddest of states my Mormon kids caught a lot more flak for their beliefs than the gay kids in their school. Ironically my Mormon son befriended a large group of gay students and they defended his right to believe as he did.I hesitate to add a CFR given the large number of assertions remaining unanswered in this thread.For the record I am against bullying and would seek the harshest punishment for any teen harassing someone for their sexual orientation or any other "different" thing about them. A good friend of mine and a state senator introduced anti-bullying legislation that was passed by the state congress. I applauded it.It is for this reason I get very testy when accused of being intolerant or hateful for my private political views or my belief that government needs to stay out of private opinions.This made me think of something I thought of today, redundantly said, that LDS were persecuted for believing in polygamous marriage at one time, could we compare it to SSM or not? I'm thinking the least we as LDS, with our history, could do is have as much compassion as possible for the LGBT desires as those that needed that same compassion in the past. Since at one time, the church did redefine marriage from the norm.
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I agree Kevin..where are these supposed 'affiliations?' I wonder if Jaybear saw this article and thats why he was insistent about it...?http://www.huffingto...&comm_ref=falseI read the Chick-fl-A link someone posted about the organizations they support...didnt see one thing about any anti-gay support.Oh an another thing....if this is so 'wrong', then why haven't we seen any breaking news about hundreds of gay Chick-Fil-A employees quitting their jobs and walking out? They have been awfully silent through all this.RedWhere are all the gay employees calling for a sit in and the head of Cathy to recant, similar to what happened to the owner of El Coyote?
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Because Chick-fil-a is a tremendous place to work. I know of no other fast food chain that has as good an overall package of pay, benefits, work environment and such low turnover. They truly do value respect for all customers and employees. Dan Cathy's personal views on marriage have no bearing on that.
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I agree Kevin..where are these supposed 'affiliations?' I wonder if Jaybear saw this article and thats why he was insistent about it...?I checked out the Puffington Host article and noticed the same trend in that article earlier leftists ignored.Every single one of the links alleging Chick-Fil-A is "anti-gay" goes not to a statement by Cathy, his corporation or to a statement by one of the alleged "anti-gay" groups, but to a radical SSM lobbying group.It's almost as if they think we're too stupid to judge for ourselves whether these groups really are "haters" unless the tell us over and over and over. There is not a single first-hand testimony or authenticated statement.It was no different with Treehuggers hypnotic intonation of ".S-P-L-C"It's always a summary and statement by a hard left, pro-SSM group declaring them "anti-gay" without providing any direct evidence to support their accusations.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 This made me think of something I thought of today, redundantly said, that LDS were persecuted for believing in polygamous marriage at one time, could we compare it to SSM or not? I'm thinking the least we as LDS, with our history, could do is have as much compassion as possible for the LGBT desires as those that needed that same compassion in the past. Since at one time, the church did redefine marriage from the norm.I am all for freedom of speech and association for gays. If gays were being systematically imprisoned in our state for their beliefs and practices I would be on the front lines to protest it. 1
Calm Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I haven't scanned through all of the conversation as it is many pages long at this point but, as a photographer, I'd like to address this particular aspect of the issue....Melly, great to see you again.
thesometimesaint Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Not so great a place to work.http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html 1
Calm Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 This made me think of something I thought of today, redundantly said, that LDS were persecuted for believing in polygamous marriage at one time, could we compare it to SSM or not? I'm thinking the least we as LDS, with our history, could do is have as much compassion as possible for the LGBT desires as those that needed that same compassion in the past. Since at one time, the church did redefine marriage from the norm.Does rejecting of the attempt to get government sanction automatically mean there is no compassion?Also remember that LDS were not attempting to get sanction or support or acceptance from anyone else on the matter of plural marriage, they simply wanted to be left alone to practice it as they felt commanded to do.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Not so great a place to work.http://www.forbes.co...7/0723/080.htmlDid you actually read the article? Despite the gratuitious slam in the title "The Cult of Chick-Fil-A" we have this evidence in the article of their terrible working conditions..."The turnover among Chick-fil-A operators is a low 5% a year. Among hourly workers turnover is 60%, compared with 107% for the industry.""It is the only national fast-food chain that closes on Sunday so operators can go to church and spend time with their families" (note it doesn't specify which church) "You don't have to be a Christian to work at Chick-fil-A, but we ask you to base your business on biblical principles because they work," says Cathy."Fifty employees and one franchisee grew up in one of 13 Christian foster homes in the U.S. and Brazil run by a nonprofit organization Chick-fil-A funds, the WinShape Foundation.""The company asks operators to pay just $5,000 as an initial franchise fee...Operators, who are discouraged from running more than a few restaurants, take home $100,000 a year on average from a single outlet.""One in three company operators have attended Christian-based relationship-building retreats through WinShape at Berry College in Mount Berry, Ga. The programs include classes on conflict resolution and communication. Family members of prospective operators--children, even--are frequently interviewed so Cathy and his family can learn more about job candidates and their relationships at home. "If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."Then there is this:"Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988"That rate is roughly once suit every two years. I bet McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell would kill for that kind of lawsuit action. Any company who doesn't hire people who share their values is asking for turnover and trouble. I have often been asked questions in interviews that are designed to show if my personal values align with the corporate values. Its called good hiring practices.So your real objection to Chick-fil-a is what? The values they share happen to be derived from the Bible? Edited August 2, 2012 by KevinG
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) I know. Lets play a fun game since the CFR requests seem to be going nowhere. (I just saw where treehugger and jaybear got thread banned so I guess the CFRs will remain unanswered).You find a video of someone (first hand not a reporter) saying they went to Chick-fil-a yesterday to protest gay marriage.I will then post a video of someone saying they went to Chick-fil-a to support free speech.Got it "gay marriage" or "free speech" in first person quotes.Lets see who runs out of video evidence first! Anyone who wants to post someone talking about "gay marriage" as the reason they went can go first just to be fair. Edited August 2, 2012 by KevinG
thesometimesaint Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 KevinG:Yes I did read it.I doubt that McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell own employees sue them even that much.As long as you agree with that company's religion you're fine. What happens if you don't want to pray to their Jesus? What happens if I don't want your 85%(The portion that Chic-Fil-A keeps) going to Pray away the Gay "therapies" ?I have nothing against Chic-Fil-A's product. Be careful those Bible values you so blithely endorse were used against the Mormons, and are still used against us by bigots.
Recommended Posts