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

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, that made it all the more asinine. But, I don't view assinine political behavior outside the office as a reason for someone to be fired

It wasn't just asinine, it was abusive. He got his just desserts.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

I'm talking about his comments in the interview, he gave.

Come on, guys. Cathy is telling the world that gays/gay marriage/the gay "lifestyle" are going to bring God's judgment on this nation, but no one is supposed to call him on that or consider that a bit bigoted? Really? We're just all supposed to act like it's a very innocuous "opinion"? Sorry, but for the people on whom he is casting aspersions, it's pretty darned serious.

No he said arguing with God as to what marriage means will bring God's judgement. Since you claim to have listened to the interview please tell me the question he was asked and his other comments just prior to that statement.

It was not limited to gay marriage and in fact did not reference "gay" at all. While same sex marriage may be in the subset of "telling God what we thing marriage ought to be" it is not the whole set of what he was talking about.

Is the offensisensitivity on the left so bad that we cannot make statements in defense of religious traditions and laws in place for thousands of years without bringing down the wrath of the "protected classes?"

[Libs]

No he said arguing with God as to what marriage means will bring God's judgement. Since you claim to have listened to the interview please tell me the question he was asked and his other comments just prior to that statement.

It was not limited to gay marriage and in fact did not reference "gay" at all. While same sex marriage may be in the subset of "telling God what we thing marriage ought to be" it is not the whole set of what he was talking about.

Is the offensisensitivity on the left so bad that we cannot make statements in defense of religious traditions and laws in place for thousands of years without bringing down the wrath of the "protected classes?"

Why does it matter what else he was talking about? That doesn't erase the negative statements about same sex marriage, which has directly to do with gays and those who are same sex attracted.

“we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

What would you think of this man, if he were talking about polygamy in Joseph Smith's day? Or if he had singled Mormons out (as many Ev's do) as being the cause of bringing God's judgment on this nation? Seriously, would you then be defending him? His right to say it, yes, but the content?? I doubt it. I hope not. I wouldn't, if he were saying these things about Mormons or any other group of people. I have defended Mormonism on other boards, many, many times, when people say exactly this kind of thing.

I can accept that people are against change and do not like the idea of same sex marriage, but some rhetoric is a LOT more inflammatory and unnecessarily divisive than others. The guy who rode through Chik-fil-a and tried to shame that young girl is a very good example of poor rhetoric on the supportive side of ss marriage. But, I think this one statement of Cathy's is no better, and perhaps much worse. And, yet, it is defended by the very same people who are crying out against the drive-thru dude, and calling him "hateful". I see a very huge double standard here...sorry, but I do.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs

[Tacenda]

Why does it matter what else he was talking about? That doesn't erase the negative statements about same sex marriage, which has directly to do with gays and those who are same sex attracted.

What would you think of this man, if he were talking about polygamy in Joseph Smith's day? Or if he had singled Mormons out (as many Ev's do) as being the cause of bringing God's judgment on this nation? Seriously, would you then be defending him? His right to say it, yes, but the content?? I doubt it. I hope not. I wouldn't, if he were saying these things about Mormons or any other group of people. I have defended Mormonism on other boards, many, many times, when people say exactly this kind of thing.

I can accept that people are against change and do not like the idea of same sex marriage, but some rhetoric is a LOT more inflammatory and unnecessarily divisive than others. The guy who rode through Chik-fil-a and tried to shame that young girl is a very good example of poor rhetoric on the supportive side of ss marriage. But, I think this one statement of Cathy's is no better, and perhaps much worse. And, yet, it is defended by the very same people who are crying out against the drive-thru dude, and calling him "hateful". I see a very huge double standard here...sorry, but I do.

Don't be sorry for what you believe to be wrong in our society Libs! I bet some here on the board are grateful that they have a voice through someone like you.

[Libs]

Thanks, Tacenda. Yeah, I should not be sorry....I guess I am mostly sorry that perhaps me and others here are not really understanding one another. I do respect most of the people on this board....and this particular subject is soooo difficult. I keep saying, to myself, that I am not going to get into these discussions anymore, but I am drawn like a moth to flame.

Thanks for your kind words...and I hope that is so.

[selek1]

Is the offensisensitivity on the left so bad that we cannot make statements in defense of religious traditions and laws in place for thousands of years without bringing down the wrath of the "protected classes?"

Indeed.

Despite her increasingly frantic thrashing, neither Libs NOR ANY OTHER critic has shown where Cathy or his foundation have said anything bigoted, hateful, or abusive of homosexuals.

He has admitted that his personal opinions contradicts their sacred no-holds-barred sexual orthodoxy- but that's contradiction, not persecution.

One wonders precisely when the First Amendment was redefined to define "anything that contradicts a liberal's ignorant, uniformed opinion" as "Hate".

Why does it matter what else he was talking about? That doesn't erase the negative statements about same sex marriage, which has directly to do with gays and those who are same sex attracted.

Call For References.

Cite Cathy's "negative statements about same sex marriage".

Not statements you think are about "same sex marriage"- statements he made referring to same-sex marriage specifically.

Not statements you imply are about "same sex marriage"- statements he made which specifically base same-sex marriage by name.

Not some pseudo fascist radical calling him "hateful"- statements he made that are hateful toward gays.

You and your fellow travellers have been dodging this question the entire thread.

You and were blowing smoke before.

You're blowing smoke now.

Put up or shut up.

[Libs]

Selek, I have already cited (at least twice or more) his very direct quote about gay marriage and what he thinks of those who defend it. I put the quote up again, just a few minutes ago.

[selek1]

What would you think of this man, if he were talking about polygamy in Joseph Smith's day? Or if he had singled Mormons out (as many Ev's do) as being the cause of bringing God's judgment on this nation?

This is a very shiny red-herring- but like every week old fish left in the sun- it is rotten to the gills.

Cathy didn't "single out" anyone- no matter how much you desperately wish to pretend otherwise.

Cathy didn't say anything "hateful"- he disagreed with a political position.

He didn't say anything "abusive"- that's been reserved (by and large) for his attackers.

Seriously, would you then be defending him? His right to say it, yes, but the content??

As you full well know- we are defending his right to say it now- regardless of its content.

Because his "right to say it" (and by extension, all of ours) is under attack.

I doubt it. I hope not. I wouldn't, if he were saying these things about Mormons or any other group of people.

Yes- we know- you don't believe he has the right to say anything that you find disagreeable.

You believe that his First Amendment rights end at your list of what is and is not "acceptable".

We get it- and that's why "anti-discrimination" laws are a threat to religious liberty.

Because civil discourse will be dumbed down based on who is most likely to be offended.

Because hyper-vigilant (but ever-so-"tolerant") censors will scream bloody murder trying to supress any speech that contradicts them.

I can accept that people are against change and do not like the idea of same sex marriage

No- you cannot. Because you have joined a movement trying to ban that idea from the public forum. ,

You are arguing that this man, his corporation, and others who think like him should be silenced- BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM.

That's not tolerance- it's tyranny.

but some rhetoric is a LOT more inflammatory and unnecessarily divisive than others.

Too bad. The First Amendment exists specifically to protect religious and political expression- no matter how many "tolerant" people can't handle being disagreed with.

The guy who rode through Chik-fil-a and tried to shame that young girl is a very good example of poor rhetoric on the supportive side of ss marriage.

And from everything I have seen, he is typical of the breed. Roseanne Barr was another particularly lovely example. There are many, many, many more.

But, I think this one statement of Cathy's is no better, and perhaps much worse.

And you are entitled to your opinion. But that does not give you the right to punish or outlaw his speech.

And, yet, it is defended by the very same people who are crying out against the drive-thru dude, and calling him "hateful". I see a very huge double standard here...sorry, but I do.

Put down the mirror- it'll help.

I promise.

Don't be sorry for what you believe to be wrong in our society Libs! I bet some here on the board are grateful that they have a voice through someone like you.

That's right- because it's fun to censor people for the crime of thinking for themselves- even if you lack the courage to stand up and admit it. Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

Selek, I have already cited (at least twice or more) his very direct quote about gay marriage and what he thinks of those who defend it. I put the quote up again, just a few minutes ago.

Bull pockey.

You posted statements which YOU INFER talk about gays.

Cathy didn't mention gays or SSM- YOU read that in to his remarks.

The CFR has not been answered.

[Libs]

What do you think he is talking about in this quote, selek (and please knock off the verbal abuse)..

“we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

What EXACTLY is he talking about here, if not same sex marriage...and who do you think would participate in same sex marriage? Heterosexuals??

Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs

[selek1]

What do you think he is talking about in this quote, selek (and please knock off the verbal abuse)..

Answer the CFR, Libs.

“we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

What EXACTLY is he talking about here, if not same sex marriage...and who do you think would participate in same sex marriage? Heterosexuals??

What I think is irrelevant. He has a Constitutional right to say it.

The words "gays", "homosexuals", and "same-sex marriage" do not appear anywhere in Cathy's quote. YOU added them to the conversation, not Cathy.

More to the point, nothing said here here violates the law, nor any rationale standard of decency or civility.

What gives YOU the right to censor this man?

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

Yes- we know- you don't believe he has the right to say anything that you find disagreeable.

This is absolutely untrue and I have said just the opposite many, many times, right here on this thread and JUST RECENTLY.

I'm not discussing this with you further, selek. You are not only, obviously, not reading my posts, but you are becoming very verbally abusive (which is one of the reasons I don't like discussing most things with you).

[Libs]

What gives YOU the right to censor this man?

Show me a quote where I have said this man should be censored! I have never said anything even close to that.

[selek1]

This is absolutely untrue and I have said just the opposite many, many times, right here on this thread and JUST RECENTLY.

I'm not discussing this with you further, selek. You are not only, obviously, not reading my posts, but you are becoming very verbally abusive (which is one of the reasons I don't like discussing most things with you).

Answer the CFR, Libs.

[Libs]

Already done multiple times.

[selek1]

Show me a quote where I have said this man should be censored! I have never said anything even close to that.

"Hate speech" is subject to criminal penalties.

Every time you (falsely) attack his statement as "hate speech", you are attacking his right to say it.

Every time you accuse us of hypocrisy for defending his right to say it, you are questioning the legitimacy of his right to say it.

You have vigorously defended those who explicitly wish to censor him.

So what conclusions are we supposed to draw?

Despite at least a half dozen statements to the contrary, you implied (in post #403) that we would agree with you if he were "attacking" Mormons instead of homosexuals.

Of all of the people in this thread having reading comprehension problems, I'm not the one you should be worried about.

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

It wasn't just asinine, it was abusive. He got his just desserts.

I agree.

Of course, if a government minister had shown up and leaned on his boss towards that end, I'd be defending his right to be asinine just as vigorously as I am defending Cathys right to speak his mind.

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

<sigh>

"Hate speech" is subject to criminal penalties.

Not in this country and that's what I said in one of my earlier posts. You are thinking about hate crimes, which ARE subject to criminal penalties. Hate speech is protected (which is why you see the Westboro gang all over the place with their signs).

Every time you (falsely) attack his statement as "hate speech", you are attacking his right to say it.

Except, I have never said it was "hate speech". I don't believe Cathy is coming from hate, but I can certainly understand why some people might think so...particularly those whom he attacks (and yes selek he did attack them - I think claiming that folks who support ss marriage will contribute to God's judgment of this nation is a pretty darned strong "attack"). That's MY opinion. Yours may vary and I'm sure it does, since you seem to agree with this man.

Every time you accuse us of hypocrisy for defending his right to say it, you are questioning the legitimacy of his right to say it.

I have NEVER done that. If you're going to keep making this accusation, you better come up with some direct quotes...quote me! I have NEVER said anything close to that. I have said he has the right to say it....and those who disagree have the right to defend themselves.

You have vigorously defended those who explicitly wish to censor him.

Not even once. I have defended THEIR RIGHT to disagree, boycott, say and do whatever they wish, as long as it's legal. I do NOT defend anyone who breaks the law...and I have not defended the idiot who yelled at the CFA worker in the drive-through. That was harassment and he WAS WRONG to do that. But, I do defend those who speak against what Cathy said, because I believe he is wrong (that's MY opinion) to which I hope you believe I am entitled.

So what conclusions are we supposed to draw?

You are drawing erroneous conclusions, because you are claiming I said things that I NEVER DID.

Despite at least a half dozen statements to the contrary, you implied (in post #403) that we would agree with you if he were "attacking" Mormons instead of homosexuals.

Of all of the people in this thread having reading comprehension problems, I'm not the one you should be worried about.

Oh, I very much disagree with you, there. You have definitely misread, just about everything I have said. It's like you are reading in your own opinions of what a liberal or ss marriage supporter would say. You are grossly misreading and misinterpreting my statements.

I am a firm supporter of free speech. I do not believe in censorship. My disagreement is only with Cathy's stance and even moreso with the way he expressed himself. (Please do not read that to say I want to censor him, because I don't). Just because someone criticizes what the man said, doesn't mean they want to take away his right to say it!!

Arg.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs

[california boy]

So, certain gays aren't anti-gay even though they oppose SSM, but certain Christians are anti-gay because they oppose SSM?

Also, are people who oppose extending marriage to underage children, anti-children?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you think that christians that support gay marriage are anti family. Are christians supporting gay marriage also trying to destroy family values? Are christians that support gay marriage also attacking freedom of religion.

There are a heck of a lot of christians that support gay marriage in this country.

[selek1]

(and yes selek he did attack them

in YOUR opinion.

Reasonable minds can and do disagree.

- I think claiming that folks who support ss marriage will contribute to God's judgment of this nation is a pretty darned strong "attack"). That's MY opinion. Yours may vary and I'm sure it does, since you seem to agree with this man.

What I think is irrelevant.

Thank you for admitting that the allegations that his comments were "hateful" and "attacks" are not factual, but are your opinion.

I have NEVER done that. If you're going to keep making this accusation, you better come up with some direct quotes...quote me! I have NEVER said anything close to that. I have said he has the right to say it....and those who disagree have the right to defend themselves.

Post #403 above. You imply that we would feel differently if he were attacking Mormon polygamous practice.

You are drawing erroneous conclusions, because you are claiming I said things that I NEVER DID.

Kinda sucks dunnit? Maybe now you'll understand how Dan Cathy feels when you do it to him.

Oh, I very much disagree with you, there. You have definitely misread, just about everything I have said. It's like you are reading in your own opinions of what a liberal or ss marriage supporter would say. You are grossly misreading and misinterpreting my statements.

Just as you are grossly misreading and misinterpreting Cathy's statements because of your bias.

I am a firm supporter of free speech. I do not believe in censorship.

And I believe you.

A startling number of your fellow travellers, however, are not so enlightened- and thus present a real and present danger to our Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association.

My disagreement is only with Cathy's stance and even moreso with the way he expressed himself. (Please do not read that to say I want to censor him, because I don't). Just because someone criticizes what the man said, doesn't mean they want to take away his right to say it.

I reiterate- your disagreement is not with Cathy's stance or the way he expressed himself- but rather with your interpretation of what he said.

Cathy said nothing about gays, homosexuals, or SSM.

You interpreted his words to apply to them.

But that's only your interpretation. It is not his fault that YOU took his words that way.

Arg.

And an "avast matey" to you, too. Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

Do you think that christians that support gay marriage are anti family.

No- but I do believe that they are anti-doctrinal, and are deceived by the flattering words of lying tongues.

Are christians supporting gay marriage also trying to destroy family values?

I don't believe so- but they are trying to redefine them in unprecedented and destructive fashion.

Are christians that support gay marriage also attacking freedom of religion.

Only when they call on the State to silence, censor, and punish those who disagree with them.

There are a heck of a lot of christians that support gay marriage in this country.

Yes. There are also a lot of self-proclaimed Alien Abduction victims in this country.

Does that mean the State should use the force of law to silence skeptics of their stories?

[Stargazer]

Jaybear is banned for this.

Skylla

Thanks be. I thought it would never happen after all these years. Miracles are possible, after all.

Please do not be swayed by any whining and scratching at the door to be let back in.

[Libs]

Selek, you are the one who is, for whatever reason, ignoring the direct references to same sex marriage, made TWICE in the Cathy quote I provided. To, then, try and say he "wasn't talking about gays" is mind boggling, to say the least! Who do you suppose he was talking about, in that quote? Murderers? Thieves? Adulterers? Given the way you have misinterpreted my statements, I guess I should not be surprised!

A startling number of your fellow travellers, however, are not so enlightened- and thus present a real and present danger to our Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association.

People who want to censor speech or punish people for holding certain political views are NOT MY FELLOW TRAVELERS. I belong to the group who fought against McCarthyism and there are a lot of those folks still out there. Ron Emanuel be d*amned...what he did was unconscionable and is giving good liberals a very bad name! He and people like him do not represent ME.

[selek1]

Selek, you are the one who is, for whatever reason, ignoring the direct references to same sex marriage, made TWICE in the Cathy quote I provided.

Again- there is no direct reference- only your own inferences.

People who want to censor speech or punish people for holding certain political views are NOT MY FELLOW TRAVELERS. I belong to the group who fought against McCarthyism and there are a lot of those folks still out there. Ron Emanuel be d*amned...what he did was unconscionable and is giving good liberals a very bad name! He and people like him do not represent ME.

More correctly- and given a wide (if self-selecting) sampling- I think it is more likely that you are not representative of them. Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[Stargazer]

What do you think he is talking about in this quote, selek (and please knock off the verbal abuse)..

“we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

What EXACTLY is he talking about here, if not same sex marriage...and who do you think would participate in same sex marriage? Heterosexuals??

Of course he's talking about SSM, what else could it be? But what is wrong about what he said?

He didn't advocate, imply, or ask for anyone to commit any criminal act in regards to the issue of marriage. He simply stated that he was concerned that GOD doesn't like what is happening concerning marriage, and that our continued rebellion against GOD might lead to GOD DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Not he himself, not any agents of any mortals that might be on earth, but GOD. And he followed up his worry about Divine retribution by expressing a prayer to that GOD that GOD might be merciful. Now, if Mr. Cathy is praying to GOD and asking GOD to be merciful to us despite our rebellion against GOD, it doesn't strike me as reasonable, in any way, shape or form, that Mr. Cathy is advocating violence or discrimination against gays. He is expressing a religious concern that just happens to involve a question of public policy -- and what the heck is wrong with that?

What happened to the old sentiment "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? These days it is all "I disagree with what you say, and I will not only seek to destroy you personally and financially, but in so doing I will intimidate anyone else who might agree with you into SHUTTING THE [bLANK] UP."