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

[ANACO]

The problem with making it legal will come when same-sex-ed is officially taught in public schools at chicken farms. Then the roosters will avoid the hens, and the hens will avoid the roosters and everything will become scrambled.

[california boy]

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

You are addressing the wrong person. I have no problem with Cathy saying and doing what ever he wants. I also have no problem with anyone boycotting his business or supporting his business. Personally I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Everyone gets to say what ever they want. That is what free speech is. No one is being denied their free speech on either side. Those that suggest otherwise say so because of their own agenda.

[Libs]

What happened to the old sentiment "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

That would be my question.

Some people here seem to think that free speech only applies to one side of the debate. Those who disagree should just sit down and shut-up.

Not everyone agrees with Cathy's idea of "sin" or what will "bring God's judgment on this country", and they have a right to express their opinions, as well. They think Cathy's judgment is hate directed specifically towards them. And, the opposition thinks they are hateful for having that opinion. Finger pointing in both directions. Gotta love it.

[Stargazer]

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!

Libs, I am not selek, but I will explain what I understand about where he is coming from.

Of course, Cathy is talking about SSM. And of course SSM has to do with homosexuality. Take me, for example, and let's leave Mr. Cathy out of it for the moment. I am opposed to SSM. I, for example, signed the Washington state referendum to require the state legislature put the matter to a public ballot after they passed a gay marriage statutue. Just because I oppose SSM does not mean that I am anti-gay. My opposition to SSM bears tangentially upon homosexuality, how could it not? But positing anti-gayness because of this is nothing more than a typical and egregious Left tactic of affirming the consequent,which is a recognized logical fallacy.

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.

Bill Gates is rich.

Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

From which we get:

If Stargazer is anti-gay, then he opposes SSM

Stargazer opposes SSM

Therefore, Stargazer is anti-gay

Stick Cathy in there instead. Same result.

Cathey has not been caught making anti-gay statements. He has been caught expressing opposition to SSM, which is a position shared by possibly a majority of Americans. The tactic of trying to equate anti-SSM with being anti-gay is getting more and more tiresome. I think the country has just about had enough. Of course, the Left doesn't see it.

[Libs]

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

Is too and I just quoted them and bolded them..again! Arg.

More correctly- and given a wide (if self-selecting) sampling- I think it is more likely that you are not representative of them.

I disagree with you, there. I know too many liberals...they are good people. You, my friend, have some biases that get in your way.

[california boy]

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

More correctly- and given a wide (if self-selecting) sampling- I think it is more likely that you are not representative of them.

Your comments to Lib is only making you look small. She has answered your question enough times that you are starting to deserve an uncivil answer. Quit bating Libs. Neither side thinks that Cathy was not addressing gays. Move on, or is this incredibly silly question the only one you got?

[Libs]

Libs, I am not selek, but I will explain what I understand about where he is coming from.

Of course, Cathy is talking about SSM. And of course SSM has to do with homosexuality. Take me, for example, and let's leave Mr. Cathy out of it for the moment. I am opposed to SSM. I, for example, signed the Washington state referendum to require the state legislature put the matter to a public ballot after they passed a gay marriage statutue. Just because I oppose SSM does not mean that I am anti-gay. My opposition to SSM bears tangentially upon homosexuality, how could it not? But positing anti-gayness because of this is nothing more than a typical and egregious Left tactic of affirming the consequent,which is a recognized logical fallacy.

From which we get:

If Stargazer is anti-gay, then he opposes SSM

Stargazer opposes SSM

Therefore, Stargazer is anti-gay

Stick Cathy in there instead. Same result.

Cathey has not been caught making anti-gay statements. He has been caught expressing opposition to SSM, which is a position shared by possibly a majority of Americans. The tactic of trying to equate anti-SSM with being anti-gay is getting more and more tiresome. I think the country has just about had enough. Of course, the Left doesn't see it.

Stargazer, the specific thing from Cathy, that is problematic, IMO (and can be construed as hateful), is not his political opinion on same sex marriage, but his self-righteous judgment on people who support ss marriage...that they will be the cause of God's judgment on this nation. Now, THAT is harsh and, I believe, uncalled for. Preach it in church, to believers, but don't bring it to a secular audience, and insult those with whom you disagree, with that kind of judgment.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs

[Stargazer]

You are addressing the wrong person. I have no problem with Cathy saying and doing what ever he wants. I also have no problem with anyone boycotting his business or supporting his business. Personally I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Everyone gets to say what ever they want. That is what free speech is. No one is being denied their free speech on either side. Those that suggest otherwise say so because of their own agenda.

While I applaud your equanamity as expressed here, you aren't quite correct. CFA as a business is being suppressed by government officials in certain jurisdictions, in a very extra-legal fashion, because the chairman expressed an opinion those officials persoanlly disagreed with, and not because of any act of criminality. Which was the subject of the OP.

[california boy]

Libs, I am not selek, but I will explain what I understand about where he is coming from.

Of course, Cathy is talking about SSM. And of course SSM has to do with homosexuality. Take me, for example, and let's leave Mr. Cathy out of it for the moment. I am opposed to SSM. I, for example, signed the Washington state referendum to require the state legislature put the matter to a public ballot after they passed a gay marriage statutue. Just because I oppose SSM does not mean that I am anti-gay. My opposition to SSM bears tangentially upon homosexuality, how could it not? But positing anti-gayness because of this is nothing more than a typical and egregious Left tactic of affirming the consequent,which is a recognized logical fallacy.

From which we get:

If Stargazer is anti-gay, then he opposes SSM

Stargazer opposes SSM

Therefore, Stargazer is anti-gay

Stick Cathy in there instead. Same result.

Cathey has not been caught making anti-gay statements. He has been caught expressing opposition to SSM, which is a position shared by possibly a majority of Americans. The tactic of trying to equate anti-SSM with being anti-gay is getting more and more tiresome. I think the country has just about had enough. Of course, the Left doesn't see it.

Your point is well taken. The only problem I have with it is you think that some how the Left is the only group that does this. The right does the exact same thing. If you attack what Cathy says, then you are antireligion and anti Christian. It is an attack on religious freedom. If you are for gay marriage than you are against traditional families. Need I go on??

[california boy]

While I applaud your equanamity as expressed here, you aren't quite correct. CFA as a business is being suppressed by government officials in certain jurisdictions, in a very extra-legal fashion, because the chairman expressed an opinion those officials persoanlly disagreed with, and not because of any act of criminality. Which was the subject of the OP.

It hasn't happened yet has it.

[selek1]

You are addressing the wrong person. I have no problem with Cathy saying and doing what ever he wants. I also have no problem with anyone boycotting his business or supporting his business. Personally I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Everyone gets to say what ever they want. That is what free speech is. No one is being denied their free speech on either side. Those that suggest otherwise say so because of their own agenda.

Willful ignorance is still ignorance. And a dishonest denial is still dishonest.

The mayors of Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago have all threatened the the Cathy family and thier corporation with extra-Constitutional, punitive action based upon their chairman's religious beliefs.

Even the ACLU has stepped up and acknowledged that this was done and that it was wrong.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWhN3BxQTDgAhORXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEya3BmZ2VxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODY-/SIG=12p9mu6rv/EXP=1344097485/**http%3a//www.examiner.com/article/aclu-of-illinois-supports-chick-fil-a

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWhN3BxQTDgAh.RXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyY3EwOTFiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODY-/SIG=12nr48mtt/EXP=1344097485/**http%3a//www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-lgbt-rights/menino-v-chick-fil

Emmanuel (and perhaps other) are facing legal action because of these extralegal threats.

Your comments to Lib is only making you look small. She has answered your question enough times that you are starting to deserve an uncivil answer. Quit bating Libs. Neither side thinks that Cathy was not addressing gays. Move on, or is this incredibly silly question the only one you got?

I will give your opinion the full weight it deserves- in fact, I have already given it far more than it deserves.

There have been almost a dozen Calls For References for anything Dan Cathy said that was explicitly anti-SSM or "hateful".

Despite epic levels of handwavium-238 and a staggering amoung of character assassination- neither you, nor Libs have produced diddly squat to answer those calls.

Bottom Line: YOU GOT NOTHIN'

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

Of course, Cathy is talking about SSM. And of course SSM has to do with homosexuality.

Thank you for that, Stargazer! Whew, I am glad to know that I am not seeing things.

[california boy]

Willful ignorance is still ignorance.

The mayors of Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago have all threatened the the Cathy family and thier corporation with extra-Constitutional, punitive action based upon their chairman's religious beliefs.

Even the ACLU has stepped up and acknowledged that this was done and that it was wrong.

Emmanuel (and perhaps other) are facing legal action because of these extralegal threats.

I will give your opinion the full weight it deserves- in fact, I have already given it far more than it deserves.

There have been almost a dozen Calls For References for anything Dan Cathy said that was explicitly anti-SSM or "hateful".

Despite epic levels of handwavium-238 and a staggering amoung of character assassination- neither you, nor Libs have produced diddly squat to answer those calls.

Bottom Line: YOU GOT NOTHIN'

Like you, I think it is wrong for any business to be denied a license because of statements by their owner as long as the company is in on way discriminating. There is no proof that CFA is discriminating. They should be granted a business license if they fit all the other criteria and zoning for their business.

I am going to ignore the rest of your post. It is just ranting.

[Stargazer]

Your comments to Lib is only making you look small. She has answered your question enough times that you are starting to deserve an uncivil answer. Quit bating Libs. Neither side thinks that Cathy was not addressing gays. Move on, or is this incredibly silly question the only one you got?

No, Cathy was not addressing gays. He was expressing concern about possible divine retributon because of SSM. Just because gays are unavoidably connected to SSM by topical reference (and you ought to know yourself that there are gays who are not in favor of SSM), does not mean that he wants to see anything bad happen to gays, or that he advocates violence or discrimination against gays, or that he goes out at night with a baseball bat looking to beat up any gays he finds.

I keep trying to come up with an analogy in regards to this matter that will not be taken out of context and be seen as insenstive or insulting. So here goes. If I say that I am opposed to siting orchards in a given location this does not mean I hate trees. If I say that I hate war, this does not mean that I hate soldiers. If I oppose enrolling every child in the world in your school breakfast, lunch and dinner program, this does not mean that I hate children. If I say I am in favor of leaving the traditional definition of marriage be as it pretty much has always been, that is, between males and females, this does not mean that I hate homosexuals.

[selek1]

Stargazer, the specific thing from Cathy, that is problematic, IMO (and can be construed as hateful),

In other words- INTERPRETED as "hateful".

You just made my point.

is not his political opinion on same sex marriage, but his self-righteous judgment on people who support ss marriage...that they will be the cause of God's judgment on this nation. Now, THAT is harsh and, I believe, uncalled for.

Every word in this statement is an interpretation, an inference, and an opinion- not a fact.

And that's the problem.

Preach it in church, to believers, but don't bring it to a secular audience, and insult those with whom you disagree, with that kind of judgment.

Congratulations- by stating a time and a place where such ideas are not permissable, you just called for censorship.

Bravo Zulu.

Cathy didn't "bring [his opinion] to a secular audience". He was asked his by an interviewer on a religious program.

And then the ever-so-tolerant, warm-and-fuzzy openminded liberals like Roseanne Barr got their knickers in a knot.

Dan Cathy didn't pick this fight.

The radical GLBT lobby did.

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[Stargazer]

Your point is well taken. The only problem I have with it is you think that some how the Left is the only group that does this. The right does the exact same thing. If you attack what Cathy says, then you are antireligion and anti Christian. It is an attack on religious freedom. If you are for gay marriage than you are against traditional families. Need I go on??

No, you don't, and just because I said the Left does it, doesn't mean that I said the Right doesn't. Did you read my link to Wikipedia's little article on "Affirming the Consequent"?

It just so happens that the Left is dominant in the media, and as a result I see a lot more examples of this from the Left. As has been pointed out before in this thread, just because "your side does it, too!" does not form an excuse for anyone doing it.

[Stargazer]

It hasn't happened yet has it.

Sometimes, when a thread has gone on for a million pages before I get involved, I really hate to read everything that went before, and I sometimes post something that makes it very clear I haven't read some very critical posts. You've just stepped into this very same puddle.

I think it was in the OP, or near the OP, sorry I am way past my bedtime and I don't have time to get more specific than that, but there is this Leftish politician in some major city (Chicago or Boston) who has been crowing rather loudly how he made the relevant city commission turn down an application for a business license to open a CFA, all based on Mr. Cathy's expression of his concern that GOD might not like what we are trying to do to marriage in this country.

Yes, it has happened. Although it might get reversed once the dear politician wakes up to the fact that he might just have stepped into a firestorm of a legal imbroglio.

[selek1]

Stargazer, the specific thing from Cathy, that is problematic, IMO (and can be construed as hateful), is not his political opinion on same sex marriage, but his self-righteous judgment on people who support ss marriage...that they will be the cause of God's judgment on this nation. Now, THAT is harsh and, I believe, uncalled for.

The problem is that this "self-righteous" indictment against SSM exists solely in your mind.

Cathy didn't say "SSM" or "SSM advocates".

He said those "who think they know better than God" what marriage is.

The same "affirming the consequent" error is being committed. "SSM advocates" are not the only ones "seeking to redefine marriage"- not by a longshot. Others in the list include (but are not limited to), polygamists, open-marriage advocates, serial adulterers, no-fault dicorce advocates, pederasts, and spousal abusers.

That you insist that he must have meant "SSM advocates" is both willful myopia and a logical error.

Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that anything Cathy said was logically, morally, or even theologically incorrect.

Edited August 4, 2012 by selek1

[california boy]

No, Cathy was not addressing gays. He was expressing concern about possible divine retributon because of SSM. Just because gays are unavoidably connected to SSM by topical reference (and you ought to know yourself that there are gays who are not in favor of SSM), does not mean that he wants to see anything bad happen to gays, or that he advocates violence or discrimination against gays, or that he goes out at night with a baseball bat looking to beat up any gays he finds.

I keep trying to come up with an analogy in regards to this matter that will not be taken out of context and be seen as insenstive or insulting. So here goes. If I say that I am opposed to siting orchards in a given location this does not mean I hate trees. If I say that I hate war, this does not mean that I hate soldiers. If I oppose enrolling every child in the world in your school breakfast, lunch and dinner program, this does not mean that I hate children. If I say I am in favor of leaving the traditional definition of marriage be as it pretty much has always been, that is, between males and females, this does not mean that I hate homosexuals.

Perhaps you missed this post

Your point is well taken. The only problem I have with it is you think that some how the Left is the only group that does this. The right does the exact same thing. If you attack what Cathy says, then you are antireligion and anti Christian. It is an attack on religious freedom. If you are for gay marriage than you are against traditional families. Need I go on??

[selek1]

Perhaps you missed this post

Perhaps you missed post #441.

[california boy]

Sometimes, when a thread has gone on for a million pages before I get involved, I really hate to read everything that went before, and I sometimes post something that makes it very clear I haven't read some very critical posts. You've just stepped into this very same puddle.

I think it was in the OP, or near the OP, sorry I am way past my bedtime and I don't have time to get more specific than that, but there is this Leftish politician in some major city (Chicago or Boston) who has been crowing rather loudly how he made the relevant city commission turn down an application for a business license to open a CFA, all based on Mr. Cathy's expression of his concern that GOD might not like what we are trying to do to marriage in this country.

Yes, it has happened. Although it might get reversed once the dear politician wakes up to the fact that he might just have stepped into a firestorm of a legal imbroglio.

The mayor of Boston said that CFA was not welcome in Boston and does not share the same values of not discriminating against the people of this city. He has not yet at this point turned down any license based on what Cathy said. If you think he has you are going to have to give a reference. No one has been denied a business license. At this point it is just talk. And like I said, the politician who makes such comments are WRONG.

[Libs]

Oh, good grief, selek...again you are accusing me of trying to censor someone, just because I find what he said to be...lacking in thought.

Of COURSE, my remarks are my opinions and interpretations, unless I claim differently.

Dan Cathy did (IMO) pick this fight. That doesn't mean he deserves to have his businesses denied a business license, in certain areas. That is wrong, wrong, wrong...and a different issue from opinions about his interview remarks (which I have already explained ad nauseam).

Goodnite!

Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs

[Stargazer]

Stargazer, the specific thing from Cathy, that is problematic, IMO (and can be construed as hateful), is not his political opinion on same sex marriage, but his self-righteous judgment on people who support ss marriage...that they will be the cause of God's judgment on this nation. Now, THAT is harsh and, I believe, uncalled for. Preach it in church, to believers, but don't bring it to a secular audience, and insult those with whom you disagree, with that kind of judgment.

So, what you're saying is that unless you are an ordained preacher and speaking from the pulpit you're not allowed to talk about God and what you believe God is concerned with?

And more to the point, you're not even being self-consistent, Libs. You just said he could preach it in the church to believers, but he shouldn't bring it to a secular audience -- when that's exactly what he did!!!! He did not issue a general press release, ex cathedra, as Chik-fil-A chairman, but merely expressed those views during an interview with a reporter of a church publication, to believers.

It is the professional and hobbyist hate-mongers who picked up on it and in great indignation trumpeted it to the secular world. This is because they cannot bear it that something they disagree with be expressed, even in some obscure religious publication that maybe ten or twenty thousand people actually read. I don't know what their circulation is, actually, but that's not the point.

Let me repeat myself: Mr. Cathy did not call a press conference and regale us all with his opinion about what God thinks of the efforts in this country to push SSM. He expressed his religious opinion in a magazine devoted to religious subject matter -- and did so in a publication which by and large agrees with his views.

Selek1 said it first, but I must agree: whether you intend it or not, you are dangerously close to advocating for the abolition of press-freedom, not to mention freedom of religion, when you forbd a citizen from expressing an opinion you disagree with.

[Stargazer]

Perhaps you missed this post

No, I even responded to it. I think you missed some post. You are puzzling me, cb.

[california boy]

No, you don't, and just because I said the Left does it, doesn't mean that I said the Right doesn't. Did you read my link to Wikipedia's little article on "Affirming the Consequent"?

It just so happens that the Left is dominant in the media, and as a result I see a lot more examples of this from the Left. As has been pointed out before in this thread, just because "your side does it, too!" does not form an excuse for anyone doing it.

I did read your link. I guess I don't understand your point. I don't think this kind of logic works either. If you acknowledge that both sides, left and right use this tatic, then what is your point?