selek1 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Some people on my side of the debate want to silence people on your side of the debate by shaming your side in the court of public opinion.Likewise, if liberals want to pursue the legislation that protects gays from discrimination in hiring and in receiving business services, that also strike me as a legitimate and worthwhile goal, fully consistent with liberal principles.Good for you. Those who boycott are also expressing freedom of speech.If your side wins this argument in the court of public opinion, more business will insult gay customers to attract business from people like you. Somehow, I don't think this business model will catch on.Most companies today seem to prefer not to offend thier gay customer and employees.These comments represent the two great lies that underlie this brand of McCarthyism.Lie #1: The Cathys and their corporation insulted their customers.The simple fact of the matter is that they did no such thing. Dan Cathy was asked in an interview about his private religious beliefs. - and stated his family's support for traditional marriage. Dan Cathy neither explicitly nor implicitly "insulted" homosexuals. This lie is akin to claiming that because I publically state that I prefer a Rolls-Royce, I have somehow insulted a Yugo.It takes a startling degree of willful tendentiousness to conflate either set of comments into some sort of ill-defined "insult".Lie #2: Punishing Chick-Fil-A advances the cause of homosexuals.There are only two ways this could be true: first, if Cathy and Chick-Fil-A were actively hindering homosexuals in a material fashion, or second, that this campaign is somehow generating sympathy and solidarity with the movementThe first is not possible because neither the Cathys nor their corporation violated any laws. There is not a single (credible or otherwise) allegation of discrimination against either an employee or customer based on their sexuality.The complaint is not now (nor has it ever been) about the Cathys or their corporate conduct- but about their private religious beliefs.Chick-Fil-A has (needlessly, IMO) reiterated that their policy requires respect for all of its employees and patrons.The second is not possible, because just like McCarthy, the pro-homosexual movement has seriously "jumped the shark" on this one. Even the ACLU has warned them to try and walk this meme back.McCarthy destroyed his public reputation in the 1954 hearings by coming across as a bully and a fanatic- despite the fact that post-War access to the Soviet archives proved he was right far more often than not.In the same fashion, the arrogance, braggadocio, and fanaticism displayed by pro-homosexual organizations has generated far more hostility and derision than sympathy.McCarthy destroyed himself by offending American's sense of propriety and fair play.The radical homosexuals have shot themselves in the foot in the same fashion.I think the problem here is not inconsistency, but is that you truly don't understand liberal principles.No- the problem is that the "liberals" have abandoned liberal principles in pursuit of their ideology,Americans, in general, do not participate in boycotts- though we do not object if you do so.Had it stopped there (this anti-Chick-Fil-A jihad has already been going on for months), then no one would have noticed or cared.On the other hand, when the power of the State is invoked to threaten people for holding a belief supported by most Americans even today, we tend to sit up and take notice.Americans don't like bullies- whether liberal or conservative.And the pro-homosexual movement has just outed themselves as the biggest bully around at the moment.The people of this country are already fed up and think we're headed in the wrong direction both socially and economically.This ill-timed witch trial- combined with the very public endorsement by a party very likely to get spanked hard in November- has created a perfect storm of backlash.This has been the public's response to a manufactured controversy.And that cannot help your cause. Edited August 1, 2012 by selek1 3
The Nehor Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Did anyone catch this story on the bomb threat against a Chick-fil-a today? More leftist love and tolerance.About as effective as Rightist love and tolerance:
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 CFAs opposes ssm and CFA affiliates and supports groups which oppose ssm; this was known sometime last year. There was even a boycott last year, where was the support last year? This is not an attack on religion or religious freedom, it is free market at its best, people are free to choose where they will spend there money.Still no CFR or links If they gave money to their Baptist Church in Jonesboro or the LDS's...I guess that would qualiffy. Just one CFR or link...please.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 About as effective as Rightist love and tolerance: No one who hates is on or in the "right"...agreed?
treehugger Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Still no CFR or links If they gave money to their Baptist Church in Jonesboro or the LDS's...I guess that would qualiffy. Just one CFR or link...please. The issue of what entities CFA donated money to was brought in another thread.
The Nehor Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 No one who hates is on or in the "right"...agreed?You are using language to confuse this. Do you mean politically right-wing or morally right?If anyone makes a joke or stupid pun about those being the same think I will punch you.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 The issue of what entities CFA donated money to was brought in another thread. The issue of what entities CFA donated money to was brought in another thread.Can I see it?
wenglund Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) The blog quoted in the OP summarized its position thusly:"Same-sex marriage combined with nondiscrimination policies will result in significant discrimination against individuals and institutions that hold to the belief that marriage is—and should be defined in law as—the union of one man and one woman."I was directly addressing that assertion in the context of whether Chik-Fil-A is a case study that supports it. If you think my position on that is "utter inanity," then I'm glad you agree with me about the actual topic of the OP.What I think is inane is your claims that "the case study of Chick-Fil-A would illustrate that same sex marriage doesn’t result in discrimination" and "complaints about same sex marriage threatening religious freedom are overblown" and "Chick-Fil-A expressed their views on this topic, and the result is that they are apparently making a lot more money" and "The case study doesn't support the narrative that same-sex marriage is causing a significant and widespread damage to religious freedom."If you can't see the important subject/object differences between your statements and the statement quoted in the OP, then you have some serious comprehension problems, as further evinced by your thinking my considering your comments as inane somehow supports what you have said. But, this is the last I will respond to you since it seems that my doing so thus far has only encouraged your inanity to no productive end--but, then, how could it?.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited August 1, 2012 by wenglund
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 You are using language to confuse this. Do you mean politically right-wing or morally right?If anyone makes a joke or stupid pun about those being the same think I will punch you. I was trying to make a point...the media considers "skin heads" to be on the right.
KevinG Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Was the person who made the threat identified? Or are you just looking for easy scapegoats?Perhaps it was just a coincidence that a bomb threat was called in on the day people were asked to support free speech rights by eating at Chick-fil-a.Maybe the threat was called in by tea party supporter who was angry that they ran out of sweet tea? Edited August 1, 2012 by KevinG 1
The Nehor Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I was trying to make a point...the media considers "skin heads" to be on the right.They are.
KevinG Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 About as effective as Rightist love and tolerance:[media=] Idiots crowd the edges of the spectrum.
The Nehor Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Idiots crowd the edges of the spectrum.In my experience idiots crowd most of the whole spectrum.
KevinG Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Can I see it?Never let facts get in the way of a good agenda.
ERayR Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 They are.No the are Fascists. Just because the media labels them right does mot make it so. The political spectrum is not linear it is a circle with communism and fascism being side by side on the circle.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 They are.I hope you joking...hating Jews and Blacks and hoping for their death is not right wing politics, nor left wing. it is just insanity.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 In my experience idiots crowd most of the whole spectrum.I just made that point above.
ERayR Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Idiots crowd the edges of the spectrum.Would say we have another fascist.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Never let facts get in the way of a good agenda.Seems so...
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 No the are Fascists. Just because the media labels them right does mot make it so. The political spectrum is not linear it is a circle with communism and fascism being side by side on the circle.The political spectrum is divided between those who eat Hummus and those who eat Chick-fil-a
The Nehor Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 No the are Fascists. Just because the media labels them right does mot make it so. The political spectrum is not linear it is a circle with communism and fascism being side by side on the circle.Yes, I've heard this before and even believe it but it amuses me to no end how some people want to redefine the far-right as the far-left to make the edge of the Right a bastion of purity and the "right way". It's rhetoric trying to alter an abstract tool to further a political agenda. I think the model works fine the way it is.Another reason to keep the model as is and keep the fascists on the Right: The skinheads and Fascists almost unanimously vote for the "Righter" candidate, i.e. the Republican.
The Nehor Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I hope you joking...hating Jews and Blacks and hoping for their death is not right wing politics, nor left wing. it is just insanity.I find it humorous that you think politics and insanity are mutually exclusive.
The Nehor Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) The political spectrum is divided between those who eat Hummus and those who eat Chick-fil-aI name you a bigot for calling all Republicans fatties. Edited August 2, 2012 by The Nehor 1
ERayR Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Yes, I've heard this before and even believe it but it amuses me to no end how some people want to redefine the far-right as the far-left to make the edge of the Right a bastion of purity and the "right way". It's rhetoric trying to alter an abstract tool to further a political agenda. I think the model works fine the way it is.Another reason to keep the model as is and keep the fascists on the Right: The skinheads and Fascists almost unanimously vote for the "Righter" candidate, i.e. the Republican. Yea but isn't that like "never let the facts get in the way of collecting votes? Edited August 2, 2012 by ERayR
ERayR Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I find it humorous that you think politics and insanity are mutually exclusive.I think they are synonyms.
Recommended Posts