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

[selek1]

The plot thickens:

http://articles.chic...rights-alderman

I wonder if the Chicago alderman has similar requirements for other Businesses in his ward who donate to conservative causes?

IE sporting Gay friendly stickers in their doors and windows (reminds me of a certian group of people in this century who were also forced to wear marks) and nation wide Public Policies?

See the LGBT is using blackmail in its bag of tricks now to BULLY the rest of us.

Given that this idiot is trying to distance himself from charges of extra-legal viewpoint discrimination, I don't see how this helps his case.

Extortion-before-the-fact is still extortion.

[Libs]

A lot of conservatives got upset when J.C. Penney's hired Ellen to be their spokesperson. There was a lot of talk about boycott. Not sure how successful it was, but I'm sure some people, to this day, will not shop there, because of it.

[Zakuska]

Well I think we pretty much have established that this is an example of anti religious prejudice and bigotry. And the only difference between CFA and Home Depot on the same plot of land is that the ceo of chick fil a voiced his opinion on the defenition of marriage.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

A lot of conservatives got upset when J.C. Penney's hired Ellen to be their spokesperson. There was a lot of talk about boycott. Not sure how successful it was, but I'm sure some people, to this day, will not shop there, because of it.

I suspect it is as much a relative non-issue as the boycott against CFA.

Now, were conservative public official denying J.C. Penny local business licenses and subjecting it to other forms of political extortion (as Selek aptly put it) for hiring Ellen, that would be an entirely different matter. I would speak out against that as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Libs]

I suspect it is as much a relative non-issue as the boycott against CFA.

Now, were conservative public official denying J.C. Penny local business licenses and subjecting it to other forms of political extortion (as Selek aptly put it) for hiring Ellen, that would be an entirely different matter. I would speak out against that as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not that I know of....and I have spoken out against that kind of thing, as well. Denying someone a business license, because you don't like their political/religious views, is wrong.

[treehugger]

A lot of conservatives got upset when J.C. Penney's hired Ellen to be their spokesperson. There was a lot of talk about boycott. Not sure how successful it was, but I'm sure some people, to this day, will not shop there, because of it.

America Familt Association has a article on both jcpenny stock crashing and multiple articles on Home Depot. AFA also sponsors a boycott of retailers which do not say "merry christmas" at Christmas time to the shoppers.

calmoriah and papa ..... Before either of you even think of asking

afa Google search

And

AFA.net

Edited August 2, 2012 by treehugger

[selek1]

A lot of conservatives got upset when J.C. Penney's hired Ellen to be their spokesperson. There was a lot of talk about boycott. Not sure how successful it was, but I'm sure some people, to this day, will not shop there, because of it.

I won't shop at Target because of their nonsense with the Salvation Army.

If you want to boycott something (and organize with others who think as you do)- more power to you.

Just don't use the power of the State to tell someone to kneel before your personal golden calf "or else".

[Libs]

America Familt Association has a article on both jcpenny stock crashing and multiple articles on Home Depot. AFA also sponsors a boycott of retailers which do not say "merry christmas" at Christmas time to the shoppers.

calmoriah and papa ..... Before either of you even think of asking

afa Google search

And

AFA.net

Interesting. Thanks Treehugger.

I'm not really against boycotts (for whatever reason). But, I think it shows a double standard when people who do it, then turn around and complain about another group doing it.

Withholding a business license, because of someone's religious beliefs, is an entirely different matter and would be illegal, I would think?

[treehugger]

Those who oppse the boycott of CFA do you also oppose the boycott of home depot

The denial of abusiness license is very much likely to be content based violation of free speech.

Edited August 2, 2012 by treehugger

[Nemesis]

Those who oppse the boycott of CFA do you also oppose the boycott of home depot

The denial of abusiness license is very much likely to be content based violation of free speech.

Why are you dancing around the answer from your initial claim? Answer or retract. That's the board rules.

Nemesis

[selek1]

Those who oppse the boycott of CFA do you also oppose the boycott of home depot

I don't see any calls on that page for government action against Home Depot.

That is the critical and crucial difference you've been trying to conceal.

We don't care who boycotts who- until unprincipled zealots start using the law and the State to punish those who disagree with them.

[treehugger]

Why are you dancing around the answer from your initial claim? Answer or retract. That's the board rules.

Nemesis

what is my claim? Honestly, I do not know what you might be referring too. PaPa is the first and only to issue a CFR. I complied with that CFR to a link to equalitymatters.org post 165 in this thread. Papa, has not demanded anything further, so I should reasonably view his silence as he is accepting of what I provide, though he may disagree.

selek (who I have on ignore, but will read on occassion) jumped on the CFR bandwagon a bit too late, as did kevinG. Keving did not accept my reference to equalitymatters.org - infact I highly doubt he even visited the site. he then as for real group, whatever that means.

So what is the claim, Papa's CFR was satisfied, selek and keving are just pestering.

But would a link to Southern Poverty Law Center work?

No it would not, I can already see in my mind the "facists" and "liberal" statement that would come from such a link.

So selek, wade (who I also ignore but will read at times, keving, et al....lets just agree right here and now that you all believe the SPLC is a group of facist-liberal-homosexual-agenda-promoters and because we all know you think that, there is no need to belabor the point any further.

Edited August 2, 2012 by treehugger

[ERayR]

A lot of conservatives got upset when J.C. Penney's hired Ellen to be their spokesperson. There was a lot of talk about boycott. Not sure how successful it was, but I'm sure some people, to this day, will not shop there, because of it.

I boycott Penny's because they think size 40 is big and tall.

[selek1]

what is my claim? Honestly, I do not know what you might be referring too. PaPa is the first and only to issue a CFR. I complied with that CFR to a link to equalitymatters.org post 165 in this thread. Papa, has not demanded anything further, so I should reasonably view his silence as he is accepting of what I provide, though he may disagree.

selek (who I have on ignore, but will read on occassion) jumped on the CFR bandwagon a bit too late, as did kevinG. Keving did not accept my reference to equalitymatters.org - infact I highly doubt he even visited the site. he then as for real group, whatever that means.

So what is the claim, Papa's CFR was satisfied, selek and keving are just pestering.

But would a link to Southern Poverty Law Center work?

No it would not, I can already see in my mind the "facists" and "liberal" statement that would come from such a link.

So selek, wade, keving, et al....lets just agree right here and now that you all believe the SPLC is a group of facist-liberal-homosexual-agenda-promoters and because we all know you think that, there is no need to belabor the point any further.

One last time, for posterity's sake.

YOU claimed that Chick-Fil-A gave to "anti-gay" groups.

You have provided links where others have called them "anti-gay"- but have not justified those attacks in any way.

You have not, provided any objective, reasoned evidence to support your accusation.

You have not, in fact, demonstrated a single instance of "anti-gay" behavior, actions, or comments on the part of the Cathy family, their corporations, or those who received donations from them.

Not a single one.

So no- blindly aping the comments made in propaganda links is NOT sufficient to answer the CFR.

Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

I'm not sure how this CFR's thing works. Does that mean we have to provide a reference with which the other person agrees? That could be difficult.

Some people, in good conscience, believe that CFA is "anti-gay", because they are anti-gay marriage. Some activists equate the two, because they believe some people want to, unfairly, deny them civil rights.. It's all relative and a matter of opinion. I don't, personally, believe that everyone who is anti-gay marriage is "anti-gay", but if I were on a liberal board, I would surely get many people to argue with me about that.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

Did anyone catch this story on the bomb threat against a Chick-fil-a today? More leftist love and tolerance.

You know, that's very insulting. Most "leftists" would be horrified, if someone actually followed through on that kind of threat. Bomb threats (left or right) are instigated by sick people, and should not be generalized to a whole group, unless you can prove that particular group, as a group, instigated and approved of it. That's simply not going to be the case for most liberals..or conservatives.

[Libs]

I boycott Penny's because they think size 40 is big and tall.

Really?

I've shopped at Penney's for years...long before Ellen. They have great kid's clothes and their prices are reasonable.

[treehugger]

For the hypertechnical winshape is the charitable arm of CFA.

[selek1]

You know, that's very insulting. Most "leftists" would be horrified, if someone actually followed through on that kind of threat.

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.

Bomb threats (left or right) are instigated by sick people, and should not be generalized to a whole group, unless you can prove that particular group, as a group, instigated and approved of it.

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.

[why me]

So selek, wade, keving, et al....lets just agree right here and now that you all believe the SPLC is a group of facist-liberal-homosexual-agenda-promoters and because we all know you think that, there is no need to belabor the point any further.

I think that the problem comes from intolerance. For example, the calls for boycotting and protesting outside an establishment. And an attempt to hurt the business because of someone's opinion. At times we need to separate the business from the personal opinion of the CEO. The business has thousands of employees with differing opinions, pays taxes and provides work for many people, including minorities who are glad to have work.

When a group attempts to shut down a business, causing people to lose jobs and other benefits, I think that these people need to do a rethink about their strategy. The same sex supporters seem to have no tolerance for opposing points of view and this can cause a fear among people who do not support their opinions. It causes the mouth to be shut. And this is the strategy of the same sex supporters: to silence dissent.

[why me]

Some people, in good conscience, believe that CFA is "anti-gay", because they are anti-gay marriage.

Many people who work inside CFA probably support gay marriage. The CEO doesn't. CFA has many restaurants who have no opinion at all because they are buildings. It is the people inside that building that hold opinions and inside CFA those opinions can be diverse. There is a difference.

[why me]

Those who oppse the boycott of CFA do you also oppose the boycott of home depot

The denial of abusiness license is very much likely to be content based violation of free speech.

America is becoming bipolar over many issues. It is unfortunate because people are becoming no longer free to disagree with groups that are strong and intolerant of other opinions. Boycotting establishments can conjure up other historical events in the past that are not so pleasant and the symbolism of organized boycotting CFA because its CEO has an opinion may not be good for democracy.

[wenglund]

So selek, wade, keving, et al....lets just agree right here and now that you all believe the SPLC is a group of facist-liberal-homosexual-agenda-promoters and because we all know you think that, there is no need to belabor the point any further.

For the record, I don't agree to let you put those words into my mouth. Were I to choose someone other that myself to speak for me, I would want him or her to at the very least be able to intelligently speak for them self. That wouldn't be you.

Besides, I am still waiting for you to answer this question from page 7: "Since when does it somehow become 'free market at its best' for public officials to deny business licenses and the sort based on opposing political views?

I am also still waiting for you to honor the CFR I issued on page nine regarding your claim that: "If I gave money to lighthouse ministries, hardly a soul here would think twice about calling me an anti-mormon." I issued the CFR because, as I said then, "Having given them money, myself, I for one wouldn't think at all, or even once, about calling you an anti-Mormon on that basis alone."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

I am also still waiting for you to honor the CFR I issued on page nine regarding your claim that: "If I gave money to lighthouse ministries, hardly a soul here would think twice about calling me an anti-mormon." I issued the CFR because, as I said then, "Having given them money, myself, I for one wouldn't think at all, or even once, about calling you an anti-Mormon on that basis alone."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that treehugger made a generalization which cannot be supported. This can happen at times during the heat of the moment. However that being said, I do think that some people would not make a difference between a donation to that organization and the antimormonism of the individual making that donation. It all depends on why that person donated the money.

[california boy]

One last time, for posterity's sake.

YOU claimed that Chick-Fil-A gave to "anti-gay" groups.

You have provided links where others have called them "anti-gay"- but have not justified those attacks in any way.

You have not, provided any objective, reasoned evidence to support your accusation.

You have not, in fact, demonstrated a single instance of "anti-gay" behavior, actions, or comments on the part of the Cathy family, their corporations, or those who received donations from them.

Not a single one.

So no- blindly aping the comments made in propaganda links is NOT sufficient to answer the CFR.

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.

Yet when those that support gay marriage point this out, you say it is not anti gays.

Can you please see that someone who is in favor of gay marriage is not anti Christian in the same way that someone who is in favor of gay marriage is not anti gay???? Quit ranting that the boycott is an attack on Christianity if you are going to rant that being against gay marriage is not anti gay.

Edited August 2, 2012 by california boy