• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

StillBallin75 said:
It has jack to do with disagreement. It has to do with the fact that they are attempting to deny an entire segment of the population their fundamental rights, which isn't any morally less reprehensible than denying minorities the right to vote.
Click to expand...

When did marriage become a fundamental right?

Who's suppressing anyone's beliefs
Click to expand...

attacing a man because of his religious beliefs and attempting to cause him financial hardships for expressing them opening equates to suppression.
 
muciti said:
the way it appears to me is he is mocking and attacking a religion because it differs from his beliefs. There are a lot of things in the old testament that were far more a product of there time and are not appliciable today. That is not selective application.
Click to expand...

That very much is selective application. You're selecting certain segments of the bible to apply based on a general consensus of its applicability. But as SB pointed out, you're making that decision. God didn't meet up with anybody and tell them "go ahead and disregard everything except those passages about gays...and go ahead and assume that the vocabulary means more than the book actually says"....which is what people do. It happens a LOT actually.
 
muciti said:
the way it appears to me is he is mocking and attacking a religion because it differs from his beliefs.
Click to expand...

You can hold whatever religious beliefs you want; if you want to believe that having buttsex or eating shellfish makes Baby Jesus cry, fine. Believe whatever nonsense you like. But when you then advocate for discrimination under the law, THAT is a problem.

There are a lot of things in the old testament that were far more a product of there time and are not appliciable today. That is not selective application.
Click to expand...

But of course, the parts about buttsex stand the test of time, because, umm, you want them to.
 
muciti said:
the way it appears to me is he is mocking and attacking a religion because it differs from his beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't mock and attack others for disagreeing with me. I attack when they are making a ****ty argument. In this case, the ****ty argument about the "Biblical definition of marriage."

There are a lot of things in the old testament that were far more a product of there time and are not appliciable today. That is not selective application.
Click to expand...

And yet there are those who routinely quote Leviticus as a justification for why gays shouldn't be able to marry. And like I pointed out earlier, nowhere in the Bible does it actually define marriage as explicitly between a man and a woman.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Like I've said elsewhere, it's one thing to hold to your own personal beliefs. I don't have a problem with that, though I disagree. It's quite another to engage in political action to actively deny someone else their rights.
Click to expand...

But what if you disagree on what a right is or should be? Some people don't view marriage as a government contract (which it has become), but rather a privilege of religion designed to perpetuate the church. Because it is a privilege there is plenty of justification for limiting access to that privilege on the basis of religious dictate and law.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Like I've said elsewhere, it's one thing to hold to your own personal beliefs. I don't have a problem with that, though I disagree. It's quite another to engage in political action to actively deny someone else their rights.
Click to expand...

So you've never given money or taken political action what so ever to any entity that has worked to remove, limit, or deny rights to any individual? You've agreed 100% with every action or statement by any entity you've given money to before?
 
muciti said:
When did marriage become a fundamental right?
Click to expand...

I believe it is a fundamental right. But even were it not a fundamental right, there exists no logical justification for allowing it for straights while denying it for gays.

attacing a man because of his religious beliefs and attempting to cause him financial hardships for expressing them opening equates to suppression.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the Boston and Chicago city governments' attempts to keep Chick-fil-A from doing business in their cities, I completely agree. If you're referring to boycotters who no longer wish to eat at Chick-fil-A, then calling it "suppression" is downright silly.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you've never given money or taken political action what so ever to any entity that has worked to remove, limit, or deny rights to any individual? You've agreed 100% with every action or statement by any entity you've given money to before?
Click to expand...

The only political cause I've ever donated money to is Human Rights Campaign. So yes.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I actually generally agreed with your point being made. It was others in this thread who've tried to compare it to "Westboro Bapist Church" and the "Nazi Party" that I have issues with.
Click to expand...

I didn't compare Dan Cathy's comments to the comments of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Nazi Party. I specifically brought those groups into it because others were claiming that what he actually said was IRRELEVANT and they were just standing up for "free speech." The fact that there is a distinction between Cathy's comments and those organizations perfectly illustrates the point that it *is* all about what he actually said, rather than standing up for "free speech" in general. Because no one would go out of their way to support the free speech of the Westboro Baptist Church if they had an "appreciation day."
 
muciti said:
just because someone disagrees with your point of view they should be equated to the KKK? How is suppression of religios beliefs any differnt?
Click to expand...
The comparison of the groups being discussed to the KKK does not lie in disagreement. It lies in their support of arbitrary/unjust discrimination, bigotry and the intentional spreading of false and hateful information about gay people.
 
muciti said:
attacing a man because of his religious beliefs and attempting to cause him financial hardships for expressing them opening equates to suppression.
Click to expand...

Some people are not attacking him specifically for his religious beliefs, but rather for his POLITICAL beliefs.
 
tessaesque said:
But what if you disagree on what a right is or should be? Some people don't view marriage as a government contract (which it has become), but rather a privilege of religion designed to perpetuate the church. Because it is a privilege there is plenty of justification for limiting access to that privilege on the basis of religious dictate and law.
Click to expand...

Then they should limit their actions to the realm of the religious institution of marriage (i.e. the religious ceremony), rather than the civil one. Which I totally have no problem with.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I don't mock and attack others for disagreeing with me. I attack when they are making a ****ty argument. In this case, the ****ty argument about the "Biblical definition of marriage."



And yet there are those who routinely quote Leviticus as a justification for why gays shouldn't be able to marry. And like I pointed out earlier, nowhere in the Bible does it actually define marriage as explicitly between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

i am not going to sit here and discuss the bible. There is no sense in that. Every person who chooses too can interpret it any way that they wish. That includes Mr. Cathy. You calling his belief names then saying that you dont attack peoples religious beliefs is pretty hypocritical. You can choose to be tolerant and you can choose to fight for your beliefs the way that many tolerant and intelligent people do.

Or you can try to force your beliefs down peoples throats by making piss poor attempts to make the others sides religious beliefs look bad by trying to isolate small portions of their text and exploit it like ignorant bigots do.

Different strokes for different folks i suppose.
 
tessaesque said:
Not sure I ever argued against this point, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up. Let's be careful about making dumb assumptions, shall we?
Click to expand...

Not sure where I assumed that you disagreed with that point, so I have no idea why you're calling it a dumb assumption. Let's be careful about making dumb assumptions, shall we?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Then they should limit their actions to the realm of the religious institution of marriage (i.e. the religious ceremony), rather than the civil one. Which I totally have no problem with.
Click to expand...

I think they view the civil concept of marriage as utterly inappropriate anyway. That's why most of them don't balk at "civil unions". As far as they're concerned it doesn't mean anything because it isn't "marriage", which, according to them, belongs solely to religion. As you and I both know, marriage neither began with or will end with religion...but we're talking about thousands of years of indoctrination.
 
Kandahar said:
They absolutely do. Just as others have the right to not support a business that openly endorses discrimination.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's one poster here who would disagree with that. The arguments mostly come from the intolerance that's being shown by those who attack religion based on their views on gay marriage. IMO, churches get a pass. Otherwise, we don't really have freedom of religion in this country.

We villify corporations for their inhumanity all the time. Here's a solid, faith-based company who, by all accounts, treats its employees and franchisees while looking through the lens of Christian Values. Yet we bash them in the head for that. Surely many religions don't embrace SSM. Have we villifed them? Are we picketting in front of their synagogs, mosques and chapels? No. We're not. But let the owner of a company walk the walk? We're ready to hang 'im from the highest tree.

I just don't get it.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I actually generally agreed with your point being made. It was others in this thread who've tried to compare it to "Westboro Bapist Church" and the "Nazi Party" that I have issues with.

A little common sense is what I'm saying in regards to trying to compare disagreeing with laws that allow homosexual marriage be recognized under the law and being a Nazi or the view points of Westboro as some kind of equivalent thing.

Being against gay marriage makes one equivalent to a group that believes being homosexual should be a "Capital Crime" as being in favor of gun registration makes on equivalent to groups that feel that all guns should be banned.
Click to expand...
The intensity of groups like the KKK and the Nazi Party is higher than that of groups like the Family Research Council. However, the reality is that both spread hateful messages about those whom they perceive as less than them and who they don't believe are worthy of the same treatment for arbitrary reasons. As a result, the comparison is a fair one if you understand what's being compared.
 
Zyphlin said:
Some people are not attacking him specifically for his religious beliefs, but rather for his POLITICAL beliefs.
Click to expand...

In this case they appear to be one in the same. Just because people politisize a religious belief does not stop it from being a religious belief. many religious people including billions outside the christian faith beleive that ssm (homosexuality in general in many cases) is wrong and it has little to nothing to do with politics. It has to do with their moral beliefs that are founded in their religion.
 
muciti said:
i am not going to sit here and discuss the bible. There is no sense in that. Every person who chooses too can interpret it any way that they wish. That includes Mr. Cathy. You calling his belief names then saying that you dont attack peoples religious beliefs is pretty hypocritical. You can choose to be tolerant and you can choose to fight for your beliefs the way that many tolerant and intelligent people do.

Or you can try to force your beliefs down peoples throats by making piss poor attempts to make the others sides religious beliefs look bad by trying to isolate small portions of their text and exploit it like ignorant bigots do.

Different strokes for different folks i suppose.
Click to expand...

Muciti. For the last time. I'm not attacking Christians for their beliefs. If you had ever spent any time in the religion/philosophy forum, I've routinely defended the religious against idiotic attacks by atheists. I'm attacking a ****ty argument.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The only political cause I've ever donated money to is Human Rights Campaign. So yes.
Click to expand...

So you've never voted for an individual on the national or state level that's contributed their vote to restricting of individuals rights regarding the ownership and carrying of firearms? I would say voting is "political action". I find it hard to believe given the gun laws present in the state you live. Or is it basically that restricting of rights is something that you selectively have issues with depending on how you personally value the right and the importance of the right and the level in which you feel the government should be okay in involving itself in that right?
 
MaggieD said:
Here's a solid, faith-based company who, by all accounts, treats its employees and franchisees while looking through the lens of Christian Values. Yet we bash them in the head for that.
Click to expand...
Nobody has said that they want to "bash the company" for being a "faith-based company who, by all accounts, treats its employees and franchisees while looking through the lens of Christian Values." People have taken issue with the company for spreading hateful messages about gay people and contributing to people and organizations that want to discriminate against them.
 
Ikari said:
I don't understand why this is an issue. Why protest or support? Some dude ran his mouth about his beliefs. Who the **** cares? It's a free country. Chick-Fil-A wasn't discriminating, was it? It wasn't breaking any law, was it? Then this is a non-issue. Some dude ran his mouth, that's all there is to it. Don't like it, don't go. But to turn this into a mountain is stupid. In a free country people are going to say all sorts of things, ain't no point getting all bent out of shape over every damned thing that is said that you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Oh so he was "running his mouth" was he.

He wasn't talking about a political issue with his so-called right to free speech, he was "running his mouth". mmmmhmmmm.
 
tessaesque said:
In my defense, I was trying to make the point that there are ways to reject gay marriage without being a raging asshole, and that people should focus on those who are raging assholes instead of making giant issues out of people who share their views more politely.
Click to expand...

if the raging assholes (politicians) had kept out of it, this whole issue would have been ignored...
 
UtahBill said:
if the raging assholes (politicians) had kept out of it, this whole issue would have been ignored...
Click to expand...
At the same time, if the raging anti-SSM assholes who decided to have a "Chik Fil A" day had kept out of it, this whole issue would have been irrelevant.
 
muciti said:
When did marriage become a fundamental right?
Click to expand...

You may have heard of happiness?

You can't have two drinking fountains and you can't have a separate window at city hall. Every couple gets the same license. You can define the ceremony any way your little heart desires. But the government issued license, you can't discriminate who gets it and who doesn't based on how they were born.



attacing a man because of his religious beliefs and attempting to cause him financial hardships for expressing them opening equates to suppression.
Click to expand...

The first amendment does't protect you from negative blow back from exercising your rights.


It's called free speech when you say: "Hey guys, let's not eat there!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom