Sarah Palin Gives Thumbs Up To Chick-fil-A

[brooks009]

Why wouldn't she?

Because it makes her looks like a backwater homophobic redneck (but that is probably her intention).

And why doesn't the owner of Chick-Fil-A have a right to do what he has done?

He does, no one said he does not have the right. He just will not get some peoples business anymore.

Is this still the liberty movement or has it become the Democratic Underground?

The liberty movement should be pro-gay marriage if we truly believe what we preach.

That's why I eat there (maybe once a month if even that). They aren't discriminating against gays, it's just one person's opinion. You can agree or disagree with that opinion, but eating at Chick-fil-A in no way means you endorse the opinion. No, they kinda are discriminating against gays.
Time for dinner. Maybe I'll go to Chick-Fil-A and support the owner using his private property the way he pleases.

And some will not go there tonight because they don’t agree with his views.

What is so stupid about a private company speaking out about something they believe in? If you don't like it then you are free to boycott them. I will eat there more often now to make up for all the PC folk boycotting them.

And some will not eat there anymore. We will see who wins this battle.

Atheists and the secular left are the masters of using state intrusion. There is no comparison. I would argue that statism is not even native to Christianity anyway, and when Christians argue for statism they are arguing like atheists.

MOST secular people in America and around the world are big-government statists. Let's not get confused about this very evident fact

You think you can group all Atheists together (how Statist of you)? What an idiot. No, not all Atheists are Statists.

The secular left has completely taken hold of the education system for example. American school children are indoctrinated with evolution and statism. This is so completely evident that it does not even need to be mentioned, but if you want examples, there's one.

Whatever losing crusade that Santorum is cooking up PALES in comparison to the influence that atheism has in the public school system to indoctrinate children with Darwinism and statism

I would rather indoctrinate children with facts, reason, and logic rather than fairytales, magic, and faith.

 

[KingNothing]

"I would rather indoctrinate children with facts, reason, and logic rather than fairytales, magic, and faith."

-Amazing line! Awesome post!

FWIW, if kids learn the theory of evolution and the scientific method that was used to develop it, they'll be able to make up their own minds regarding its validity. If they're brainwashed into believing religious dogma, they lose out on reason and rely solely on faith as the foundation of their belief. How does that help advance society, or an individual?

 

[AuH20]

BS.. A bunch of radical fags are always pushing straights buttons. The agenda is to make it so that anybody who says anything gets the full brunt of the law coming down on them. Christians just tell ya that God is gonna sort you out. That is gonna happen anyways. They are just reminding of the inevitable. It is not inevitable to engage in homosexual sex.

Some of us actually find it revolting and it is built into us biologically.

Rev9

Nature is the biggest bigot of them all. I'm surprised mother nature hasn't been named in a lawsuit yet. LOL Marriage basically started off as a survival concept in order to propagate the species and provide stability going forward. Too bad the homosexual and gay community have never arrived at this uncomfortable conclusion.

With that said, marriage certification should be removed from the state's list of responsibilities so as to let this oversensationalized argument die.

 

[brooks009]

It’s interesting how many people commenting here are more libertarian than I am but when a topic that contradicts with your religious views is introduced your libertarian views go out the window.

 

[KingNothing]

Nature is the biggest bigot of them all. Marriage basically started off as a survival concept in order to propagate the species and provide stability going forward. Too bad the homosexual and gay community have never arrived at this uncomfortable conclusion.

Nature is indeed a bigot. It does many things that prevent people from propagating their species. It makes people sterile. It makes people so sexually unattractive that they will not reproduce. It makes people die before maturity. But make no mistake - it also makes people gay. If we offer equality under the law to ugly people, sterile people, and people with a malady that will result in early death, why shouldn't we offer the same to gay people? If government is in the marriage business, it should open its doors to gay people.

 

[KingNothing]

It’s interesting how many people commenting here are more libertarian than I am but when a topic that contradicts with your religious views is introduced your libertarian views go out the window.

Religion isn't based on rational behavior, it's based on faith. You can't expect people so committed to religion to avoid such cognitive dissonance. And I don't even mean to knock religion or religious people -- I've absolutely no problem with the personal beliefs that anyone wishes to practice. I do, however, have a problem with people pushing those beliefs onto others, which is what the gay marriage represents.

 

[specsaregood]

It’s interesting how many people commenting here are more libertarian than I am but when a topic that contradicts with your religious views is introduced your libertarian views go out the window.

Exactly which libertarian view do you see going out the window? I don't see anybody suggesting that gays be forced apart.

 

[matt0611]

Good for her. I think I'll take a few trips to Chick-fil-a this week.

 

[AuH20]

Nature is indeed a bigot. It does many things that prevent people from propagating their species. It makes people sterile. It makes people so sexually unattractive that they will not reproduce. It makes people die before maturity. But make no mistake - it also makes people gay. If we offer equality under the law to ugly people, sterile people, and people with a malady that will result in early death, why shouldn't we offer the same to gay people? If government is in the marriage business, it should open its doors to gay people.

I agree. With the government certifying marriage and with regards to the 14th amendment, you are right. But as an independent observer, given the traditional definition of marriage irrespective of religious beliefs, I don't know how two men can truly be married, beyond the highly rationalized, artificial classification that the state bestows. Sure, they will be legally married but I see it as a hollow concept. Now that's not to say that there in these "marriages" there isn't special, loving relationship between two individuals that transcends time, but calling it marriage in the traditional sense is more than a stretch.

 

[KingNothing]

Exactly which libertarian view do you see going out the window?

You know how when you watched basically every Republican other than Ron Paul talk about race during the presidential debates, you could just feel elitism and racism oozing from them? They may have paid lip service to equality under the law, and equality in general, but you knew that deep down, they held collectivist views of minorities? (which made it ironic that Paul was the one chided for "racism" - he was the only guy who seemed sincere in his regard for the Individual.)

What we see in this thread is people who seem to be paying lip-service to the idea that gay people are equal (in some cases, in others they've been described as morally inferior in so many words) and deserve equal treatment under the law, while refusing to acknowledge that gay people should be allowed to wed. The answer, clearly, is to get marriage out of the State's purview but in lieu of that, matrimonial bliss should be open to gay folks as well. It shouldn't be a difficult thing to people in our movement to embrace.

 

[KingNothing]

I agree. With the government certifying marriage and with regards to the 14th amendment, you are right. But as an independent observer, given the traditional definition of marriage, I don't how two men can truly be married, beyond the highly rationalized, artificial classification that the state bestows. Sure, they will be legally married but I see it as a hollow concept. Now that's not to say that there in these "marriages" there isn't special, loving relationship between two individuals that transcends time, but calling it marriage in the traditional sense is more than a stretch.

So, it's only a marriage if two people can have kids? Jesus, man.
I know of couples who can't have children, but love each other and decided to get married because of it.

Marriage isn't about children. It's about love, and committing yourself to another individual.

It seems like some of you people just have really backward or odd views on these things

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[KingNothing]

Good for her. I think I'll take a few trips to Chick-fil-a this week.

And I'll never go there again and ask my lovely girlfriend to do the same in an effort to counter such bigotry.

 

[matt0611]

You know how when you watched basically every Republican other than Ron Paul talk about race during the presidential debates, you could just feel elitism and racism oozing from them? They may have paid lip service to equality under the law, and equality in general, but you knew that deep down, they held collectivist views of minorities? (which made it ironic that Paul was the one chided for "racism" - he was the only guy who seemed sincere in his regard for the Individual.)

What we see in this thread is people who seem to be paying lip-service to the idea that gay people are equal (in some cases, in others they've been described as morally inferior in so many words) and deserve equal treatment under the law, while refusing to acknowledge that gay people should be allowed to wed. The answer, clearly, is to get marriage out of the State's purview, but in lieu of that matrimonial bliss should be open to gay folks as well.

Just because some people behave differently doesn't make them a special class in my eyes that have "rights" to do things like marriage. I'm all for getting government out of marriage totally, that's fine. But I won't support having my state setting things up so two men or two women to "marry", because they can't, marriage is between a man and woman, this goes for everybody. If two men or two women want to have relations with each other thats their business.

Now, off to chick-fil-a to get me some chicken.

 

[KingNothing]

Ok, but there is absolutely nothing "libertarian" about govt licensing. so my question remains. which libertarian view is going out the window?
My wife and I didn't get a govt marriage license, fuck the govt we don't need their approval. We instead had an event for family and friends where we made our vows.

Yes, this makes sense. I'm fine with this.
But Libertarianism also requires equality under the law. As many of the marriage laws are currently written, this is not the case. You either get government out of the marriage business, or open marriage up to gay people. Period.


And, for what it's worth, if we want to appeal to a broad base of voters, we're going to have to become more tolerant of homosexuals. It's the direction that the country is moving towards. The underlying disdain for them is for the birds.

 

[jmdrake]

Don't let HuffPo think for you. Do you know of any Christian groups that are trying to get Lawrence v Texas overturned? Because I don't. Trying to re-criminalize homosexuality is "targeting gays". Offering help to people who want to leave the gay lifestyle (as does Exodus international) is not. And why should you or anyone else consider Chick-fil-a donating to pro life groups a negative when Ron Paul is unabashedly pro-life?

What they said is a non issue. The claim that Christian groups aren't targeting gays, pro-lifers, etc is a lie. They spend MILLIONS bribing our government and this company alone has spent millions supporting those groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html

The real issue should be about special interest groups and corporations having access to OUR government in order to shape it's policies.
Eliminate all lobbying and all campaign contributions by groups and corporations and limiting contributions by individuals would help eliminate much of the corruption and false flag issues designed to keep us divided so that liberties can be eliminated.

Education is the key....not (your) GOD and certainly not more laws if you wish to change human behavior.

 

[KingNothing]

Just because some people behave differently doesn't make them a special class in my eyes that have "rights" to do things like marriage. I'm all for getting government out of marriage totally, that's fine. But I won't support having my state setting things up so two men or two women to "marry", because they can't, marriage is between a man and woman, this goes for everybody. If two men or two women want to have relations with each other thats their business.

Now, off to chick-fil-a to get me some chicken.

See, Spec. This is what I mean.

It is complete and total bat-shit insanity. It's bigotry. It has no place in modern society. Offense completely intended, matt0611. Why do you care what other people do? That is anathema to Libertarianism!

 

[AuH20]

So, it's only a marriage if two people can have kids? Jesus, man.
I know of couples who can't have children, but love each other and decided to get married because of it.

Marriage isn't about children. It's about love, and committing yourself to another individual.

It seems like some of you people just have really backward or odd views on these things

No man and woman. Yin and yang. I didn't write the biological rules set forth in our DNA. I'm not saying homosexuals and LGBT shouldn't be able to live free with their special someone, but to insist that others fully recognize this to be the natural order of the universe is laughable. This claim to legitimacy is some sort mental disorder or coping mechanism which I fully can comprehend and empathize with, but that doesn't mean we should suspend our logic or sense based perception.

 

[KingNothing]

No man and woman. Yin and yang. I didn't write the biological rules set forth in our DNA. I'm not saying homosexuals and LGBT shouldn't be able to lives free with their special someone, but to insist that others consider this to be the natural order of the universe is laughable. This claim to legitimacy is some sort mental disorder or coping mechanism which I fully can comprehend and empathize with, but that doesn't mean we should suspend our logic or sense based perception.

I guess I'm just more tolerant of others and willing to grant them that they wouldn't voluntarily expose themselves to such deep hatred and prejudice. I see no reason to hate someone for living a live that, for one reason or another, they're obligated to live

 

[erowe1]

Marriage isn't about children. It's about love, and committing yourself to another individual.

If that's what it's about, I don't know what gay marriage proponents think the problem is. There's no place in America that two members of the same sex can't love and commit themselves to each other. And they don't need my approval or anyone else's to do it. Freedom to live how they want isn't what they're after, what they're after is societal approval. And that's why something as innocuous as the words of the owner of Chic-Fil-A are so intolerable to them.