Sarah Palin Gives Thumbs Up To Chick-fil-A

[WhistlinDave]

No it didn't. It was chock full of fallacy. The homosexual gene has been disproven and it is a Universal fact that no behavior is mandatory.

Rev9

Could you cite a source for that? To my knowlege, it has been neither proven nor disproven that there is a genetic factor in homosexuality. The jury is still out on that in the scientific community. The closest they've come (as far as I know) is there is a certain part of the brain that looks more like a woman's brain in a gay man's brain, enlarged compared to in a straight man's brain. It seems like biological causality but it's not really provable because we still know so little about how the brain actually works, and how & why brain anatomy develops.

So let's just suppose for a moment you're correct. What if being attracted to people of the same sex is a choice, and all these gays are choosing to be that way? Personally I find that as ridiculous as me saying that when I was a kid at some point I chose to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla... I don't know why it tastes better to me, it just does, for over 40 years now. I did not choose that preference, at least not that I can remember. Could I choose to only eat vanilla the rest of my life if all of society hated me for liking chocolate better? I guess I could modify my behavior, but that seems pretty stupid when chocolate ice cream tastes better to me and it makes me happier. But I digress... Back to the point....

So let's run with your premise. Suppose homosexuality is a choice. How does this change the argument any? Isn't Liberty all about freedom of choice?

Should I have the right to use government force (i.e. writing laws) to force someone not to make that choice? If two strangers down the street choose to define marriage as two adults who love each other regardless of gender, and that definition does not agree with my own religion, should I have the right to enforce my own religious definition upon them and write it into the law?

I can define marriage for myself, and I can build whatever kind of family I want, but when it comes to other people, what right do I have to choose for them how they should define their own relationship and family? What right do I have to make laws telling people when it comes to marriage, they have to choose my way or not at all?

Sounds like big government to me, and the worst kind--theocracy. Government which forces the entire population to observe a preferred religion. Whether homosexuals can "help it" or not, what business is it of mine--or the government's--who they love and what they choose to call that relationship? If people fixated on straight sex the way they fixate on gay sex, most people would probably find my marriage revolting because my wife is overweight and I am starting to go bald. Should they have the right to tell me we can't be married because they find the thought of the two of us having sex disgusting? She is beautiful to me, and makes me happy, and vice versa. That's all that should matter.

If we're supposed to keep gay marriage illegal, there must be something about this Liberty stuff that I'm completely missing. I thought it was about people being able to think, believe, choose, and do whatever makes them happy, without the government telling them they can't.

 

[DamianTV]

Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene



(Please dont -Rep me for this. Its SATIRE!)

 

[WhistlinDave]

And yet Ron Paul hasn't endorsed gay marriage. You must think he's a bigot. The position that those you are disagreeing with is in line with Ron Paul. Rather than having the federal government try to make everybody "equal", work to reduce the inequality created by the federal government. Here's a concrete example of the difference. Under one view businesses must be forced to let gay partners have marriage health insurance benefits whether the business agrees with it or not. Under a liberty view, instead work to decouple employment from health insurance. You typically don't go through your employer to buy car insurance. You often don't go through your employer to by life insurance. Why go through your employer to buy health insurance? The answer is because of a stupid federal policy. Well change the freaking policy. Some of us feel that every step this movement should take, as a movement, should be towards reducing the size and scope of government. Expanding the definition of marriage, by definition, expands the size and scope of government. That doesn't mean that people can't be part of this movement who in some areas want to increase the size and scope of government. There are a few, for example, who really believe in man made global warming and that the government should do something about that. That's fine for them I suppose.

Here is Ron Paul on gay marriage. You may think he doesn't "endorse" gay marriage, but I do. Not in the sense that we should make more laws--I think we can all agree with Ron Paul that government should not be in the business of marriage at all--but note that he says everyone should be free to define marriage for themselves. As far as I can tell, RP is saying that even though he personally defines marriage as between a man and a woman, if two gay people want to define it differently for themselves, and they want to go get married, they should have the freedom to do so. To me, that is an endorsement of allowing gay marriage. Ron Paul certainly isn't endorsing the notion we should be donating money to groups trying to write laws to keep gay marriage illegal as Chik-Fil-A does. (And as I said before, they are free to do whatever they want with their money, it's theirs--they just won't get any of mine.)

 

[KingNothing]

I bet there are a lot more franchises seeing their business improve than there are hurt by this.

And isn't that a shame? Its my whole point. People aren't sticking up for CFA's right to free expression, they're just anti-gay.

 

[erowe1]

And isn't that a shame? Its my whole point. People aren't sticking up for CFA's right to free expression, they're just anti-gay.

Why do you think that's a shame? I thought that you thought there was nothing right or wrong with anybody liking or disliking anybody else?

 

[KingNothing]

Why would you think that? Irrational hatred is something that humanity should strive to overcome. Just because I'm a Libertarian doesn't mean I believe that human beings should be intolerant, prejudiced, judgemental jerks.

We'd all be far better off if we started to think about how we can ease the anguish we force others to endure, just by showing some empathy and courtesy. Its bothersome that an atheist is telling this to a thread full of Christians.

 

[KingNothing]

My heart breaks for kids who sign up for the military, without knowing the crap they're about to endure for the cause of imperialism. It breaks for gay kids forced to live in fear. It breaks for the poor people who have been conditioned to be dependent on the state. It breaks for minorities who have been made to feel the wrath of the war on drugs at disproportionate rates, and everyone else who has felt the effects of it. These are things that we as individuals need to fix. We've got to overcome our irrational fears, which lead us to the waiting arms of authoritarians and hate mongers.

Empathy for the hardships homosexuals have endured is just one piece of the puzzle.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Nothing says family values like fried and breaded fast food.

 

[brooks009]

Its bothersome that an atheist is telling this to a thread full of Christians.

It really is sad.

 

[ScotTFO]

Could you cite a source for that? To my knowlege, it has been neither proven nor disproven that there is a genetic factor in homosexuality. The jury is still out on that in the scientific community. The closest they've come (as far as I know) is there is a certain part of the brain that looks more like a woman's brain in a gay man's brain, enlarged compared to in a straight man's brain. It seems like biological causality but it's not really provable because we still know so little about how the brain actually works, and how & why brain anatomy develops.

So let's just suppose for a moment you're correct. What if being attracted to people of the same sex is a choice, and all these gays are choosing to be that way? Personally I find that as ridiculous as me saying that when I was a kid at some point I chose to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla... I don't know why it tastes better to me, it just does, for over 40 years now. I did not choose that preference, at least not that I can remember. Could I choose to only eat vanilla the rest of my life if all of society hated me for liking chocolate better? I guess I could modify my behavior, but that seems pretty stupid when chocolate ice cream tastes better to me and it makes me happier. But I digress... Back to the point....

So let's run with your premise. Suppose homosexuality is a choice. How does this change the argument any? Isn't Liberty all about freedom of choice?

Should I have the right to use government force (i.e. writing laws) to force someone not to make that choice? If two strangers down the street choose to define marriage as two adults who love each other regardless of gender, and that definition does not agree with my own religion, should I have the right to enforce my own religious definition upon them and write it into the law?

I can define marriage for myself, and I can build whatever kind of family I want, but when it comes to other people, what right do I have to choose for them how they should define their own relationship and family? What right do I have to make laws telling people when it comes to marriage, they have to choose my way or not at all?

Sounds like big government to me, and the worst kind--theocracy. Government which forces the entire population to observe a preferred religion. Whether homosexuals can "help it" or not, what business is it of mine--or the government's--who they love and what they choose to call that relationship? If people fixated on straight sex the way they fixate on gay sex, most people would probably find my marriage revolting because my wife is overweight and I am starting to go bald. Should they have the right to tell me we can't be married because they find the thought of the two of us having sex disgusting? She is beautiful to me, and makes me happy, and vice versa. That's all that should matter.

If we're supposed to keep gay marriage illegal, there must be something about this Liberty stuff that I'm completely missing. I thought it was about people being able to think, believe, choose, and do whatever makes them happy, without the government telling them they can't.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[bill1971]

Could you cite a source for that? To my knowlege, it has been neither proven nor disproven that there is a genetic factor in homosexuality. The jury is still out on that in the scientific community. The closest they've come (as far as I know) is there is a certain part of the brain that looks more like a woman's brain in a gay man's brain, enlarged compared to in a straight man's brain. It seems like biological causality but it's not really provable because we still know so little about how the brain actually works, and how & why brain anatomy develops.

So let's just suppose for a moment you're correct. What if being attracted to people of the same sex is a choice, and all these gays are choosing to be that way? Personally I find that as ridiculous as me saying that when I was a kid at some point I chose to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla... I don't know why it tastes better to me, it just does, for over 40 years now. I did not choose that preference, at least not that I can remember. Could I choose to only eat vanilla the rest of my life if all of society hated me for liking chocolate better? I guess I could modify my behavior, but that seems pretty stupid when chocolate ice cream tastes better to me and it makes me happier. But I digress... Back to the point....

So let's run with your premise. Suppose homosexuality is a choice. How does this change the argument any? Isn't Liberty all about freedom of choice?

Should I have the right to use government force (i.e. writing laws) to force someone not to make that choice? If two strangers down the street choose to define marriage as two adults who love each other regardless of gender, and that definition does not agree with my own religion, should I have the right to enforce my own religious definition upon them and write it into the law?

I can define marriage for myself, and I can build whatever kind of family I want, but when it comes to other people, what right do I have to choose for them how they should define their own relationship and family? What right do I have to make laws telling people when it comes to marriage, they have to choose my way or not at all?

Sounds like big government to me, and the worst kind--theocracy. Government which forces the entire population to observe a preferred religion. Whether homosexuals can "help it" or not, what business is it of mine--or the government's--who they love and what they choose to call that relationship? If people fixated on straight sex the way they fixate on gay sex, most people would probably find my marriage revolting because my wife is overweight and I am starting to go bald. Should they have the right to tell me we can't be married because they find the thought of the two of us having sex disgusting? She is beautiful to me, and makes me happy, and vice versa. That's all that should matter.

If we're supposed to keep gay marriage illegal, there must be something about this Liberty stuff that I'm completely missing. I thought it was about people being able to think, believe, choose, and do whatever makes them happy, without the government telling them they can't.

Awesome post! Although their response would be "eating chocolate isnt a sin"

 

[showpan]

I'm all for protecting their freedom of speech, what they say should not be an issue. However, Christians like these are not really Christians at all because if they truly followed the bible, ALL would be welcome and not just those they have deemed worthy enough to worship their McJesus. And how libertarian to claim that a private company has a right to define marriage but the government doesn't. I thought that Libertarians were fighting for freedom and liberty....not just trading a government dictatorship for a private one.



The Cult of Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html


Chick-Fil-A Sued For Firing Woman So She Could Be A ‘Stay Home’ Mom

“On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Barbara Honeycutt that she was being terminated so she could be a stay home mother.”
“Howard routinely made comments to the Plaintiff suggesting that as a mother she should stay home with her children.”
“The Defendant has engaged in a pattern of gender discrimination against female employees.”

http://www.glaad.org/files/101150536-Lawsuit_1.pdf

Despite a corporate statement declaring that the purpose of Chick-Fil-A is “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us,” Cathy told the Baptist Press that it isn’t a Christian business.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...any-president-article-1.1116841#ixzz22JQfNnLk

Women accuse Chick-fil-A manager of sexual harassment

The women allege in their lawsuit that when they complained to the restaurant's owner, Mandy Medlin, they were ignored. They also claim Chick-fil-A's corporate headquarters ignored their complaints and instead of taking action to stop the harassment, the three of the women were fired.

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/ks...arassed-at-chickfila-20120105,0,2055463.story

Chick-fil-A Fighting With Dude Who Sells ‘Eat More Kale’ T-Shirts

The Southern chicken chain sent a strongly worded letter to Vermont-based "folk artist" Bo Muller-Moore, who sells T-shirts stamped with the phrase "eat more kale."* The reason: According to the AP, Chick-fil-A says "eat more kale" is too similar to the chain's "eat more chikin" campaign and "is likely to cause confusion of the public and dilutes the distinctiveness of Chick-fil-A's intellectual property and diminishes its value." But Muller-Moore isn't going down without a fight!

State Of Vermont Supporting 'Eat More Kale' Artist In Chick-Fil-A Battle

"We support the entrepreneurial spirit of small business," said the statement issued by company spokesman Don Perry. "Unfortunately, when protecting our trademark, the law does not allow us to differentiate between a large company or a small enterprise... we must legally protect and defend our "Eat Mor Chikin" trademarks in order to maintain rights to the slogan. It is not uncommon for us – or for any corporation – to defend our trademark rights."

Muller-Moore has been making the "eat more kale" T-shirts and other items for more than a decade. The phrase was created by a local vegetable farmer who asked him to make three T-shirts with the phrase.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/vermont-eat-more-kale_n_1129885.html

Chick-fil-A: Employee mocking Asians

 

[erowe1]

However, Christians like these are not really Christians at all because if they truly followed the bible, ALL would be welcome and not just those they have deemed worthy enough to worship their McJesus.

What Christians are you talking about that are not welcoming someone somewhere? Who are they not welcoming, and where are they not welcoming them?

 

[jmdrake]

Dear Dave. Please quote for me anywhere in this thread where I said gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. Better yet go back and see the multiple times where I have said that gays already can get married! Yes, that's the big secret that you may not have figured out yet. Polygamy is criminalized in the country. Gay marriage is not. If you go before a preacher and marry another man you won't get arrested. If you go before a preacher and marry two women, depending on the state, you can be arrested and convicted of a felony.

Now here's where I differ with Ron Paul. He felt that Lawrence v. Texas was a bad ruling. You know, the Supreme Court ruling that struck down sodomy laws? Oh, Ron Paul agrees that sodomy laws are silly, but he thinks (at least he thought) that states should be allowed to criminalize homosexual behavior through sodomy laws. Don't take my word for it. Read his own words for yourself and please, please educate yourself on this issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

I would apologize for sounding angry, except for the fact that I have every right to be angry. It pisses me off when I take a position that is more conciliatory towards gays than Dr. Paul's position, and yet someone takes one or two interviews with Dr. Paul out of context, and assumes wrongly that Dr. Paul agrees with them. Now, does that mean you have to agree with Dr. Paul on this? No. Of course not. After all, like I said, even I disagree with his Lawrence position. But this concerted effort that's been going on on this forum for years now to push an agenda outside of Dr. Paul on the issue of gay marriage and simultaneously malign those of us who happen to disagree is irritating to say the least.

Here's the bottom line. People can disagree with you about whether or not the state definition of marriage should be expanded without having a problem with gays or what gays decide to do in front of some preacher and what they want to call whatever it is they do. I think the way forward is to get the government out of marriage, and not to expand the definition of marriage. Others want to insist over and over again that their way must be "right" and while we're waiting around twiddling our thumbs (according to them) that we must jump on the gay marriage bandwagon first and them maybe, kinda, sorta think about reducing the federal role in marriage later. Well if that's the tactic you want to pursue, pursue it. I've seen absolutely no evidence that Dr. Paul agrees with you. None whatsoever.

Here is Ron Paul on gay marriage. You may think he doesn't "endorse" gay marriage, but I do. Not in the sense that we should make more laws--I think we can all agree with Ron Paul that government should not be in the business of marriage at all--but note that he says everyone should be free to define marriage for themselves. As far as I can tell, RP is saying that even though he personally defines marriage as between a man and a woman, if two gay people want to define it differently for themselves, and they want to go get married, they should have the freedom to do so. To me, that is an endorsement of allowing gay marriage. Ron Paul certainly isn't endorsing the notion we should be donating money to groups trying to write laws to keep gay marriage illegal as Chik-Fil-A does. (And as I said before, they are free to do whatever they want with their money, it's theirs--they just won't get any of mine.)

 

[jmdrake]

You realize that nobody is "forcing" homosexuals not to marry? You realize that gay marriage is actually legal in all 50 states? Polygamy is what is illegal. As to your "chocolate" point, the choice matter gets brought into this because people want to say that the gay marriage issue is the same as the segregation issue. I agree with your assessment that this is closer to a religious freedom issue than a race issue. But guess what? Under current law religion isn't a protected class to the same extent race is.

Lastly, I leave you with an analogy I gave earlier. I believe in drug decriminalization, but I don't agree with using recreational drugs. One way drugs are being somewhat decriminalized is through medical marijuana. I'm not a big fan of prescription drug benefits, but they exist. If medical marijuana became legal nationally, I would have a problem with expanding Medicare D to cover medical marijuana. I would not argue "Well this needs to be equalized just because prozac users get Medicare D". I don't think that would somehow make me against medical marijuana. Maybe you would. Now take that same analogy, replace prescription drugs with heterosexual marriage and gay marriage with medical marijuana and maybe, just maybe you can understand the position of probably 90% of the people you disagree with on this issue who happen to be pro liberty.

Could you cite a source for that? To my knowlege, it has been neither proven nor disproven that there is a genetic factor in homosexuality. The jury is still out on that in the scientific community. The closest they've come (as far as I know) is there is a certain part of the brain that looks more like a woman's brain in a gay man's brain, enlarged compared to in a straight man's brain. It seems like biological causality but it's not really provable because we still know so little about how the brain actually works, and how & why brain anatomy develops.

So let's just suppose for a moment you're correct. What if being attracted to people of the same sex is a choice, and all these gays are choosing to be that way? Personally I find that as ridiculous as me saying that when I was a kid at some point I chose to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla... I don't know why it tastes better to me, it just does, for over 40 years now. I did not choose that preference, at least not that I can remember. Could I choose to only eat vanilla the rest of my life if all of society hated me for liking chocolate better? I guess I could modify my behavior, but that seems pretty stupid when chocolate ice cream tastes better to me and it makes me happier. But I digress... Back to the point....

So let's run with your premise. Suppose homosexuality is a choice. How does this change the argument any? Isn't Liberty all about freedom of choice?

Should I have the right to use government force (i.e. writing laws) to force someone not to make that choice? If two strangers down the street choose to define marriage as two adults who love each other regardless of gender, and that definition does not agree with my own religion, should I have the right to enforce my own religious definition upon them and write it into the law?

I can define marriage for myself, and I can build whatever kind of family I want, but when it comes to other people, what right do I have to choose for them how they should define their own relationship and family? What right do I have to make laws telling people when it comes to marriage, they have to choose my way or not at all?

Sounds like big government to me, and the worst kind--theocracy. Government which forces the entire population to observe a preferred religion. Whether homosexuals can "help it" or not, what business is it of mine--or the government's--who they love and what they choose to call that relationship? If people fixated on straight sex the way they fixate on gay sex, most people would probably find my marriage revolting because my wife is overweight and I am starting to go bald. Should they have the right to tell me we can't be married because they find the thought of the two of us having sex disgusting? She is beautiful to me, and makes me happy, and vice versa. That's all that should matter.

If we're supposed to keep gay marriage illegal, there must be something about this Liberty stuff that I'm completely missing. I thought it was about people being able to think, believe, choose, and do whatever makes them happy, without the government telling them they can't.

 

[Agorism]

Palin is just being tacky. Gay marriage or chik-fil-a manager's positions aren't the point.

 

[RickyJ]

Palin is just being tacky. Gay marriage or chik-fil-a manager's positions aren't the point.

It wasn't a Chick-fil-a manager that said he/she was against gay marriage, it was the president of the company. Some stores are independently owned and at least one has said they do not agree with Dan Cathy. Sarah Palin has a record of being against gay marriage, so it is not surprising that she would support a company that publicly announces they are against gay marriage. That may be tacky to you, but it is consistent with her long stated positions.

 

[Agorism]

It wasn't a Chick-fil-a manager that said he/she was against gay marriage, it was the president of the company. Some stores are independently owned and at least one has said they do not agree with Dan Cathy. Sarah Palin has a record of being against gay marriage, so it is not surprising that she would support a company that publicly announces they are against gay marriage. That may be tacky to you, but it is consistent with her long stated positions.

No, she ran right in there and for involved with it for no particular reason. Tom Coburn is again gay marriage, but I wasn't surprised when he wasn't posing in anti-gay picture. A worse analogy would be to Rick Santorum who bee lines it to the first available person he can think of to try to offend.

 

[WhistlinDave]

You realize that nobody is "forcing" homosexuals not to marry? You realize that gay marriage is actually legal in all 50 states? Polygamy is what is illegal. As to your "chocolate" point, the choice matter gets brought into this because people want to say that the gay marriage issue is the same as the segregation issue. I agree with your assessment that this is closer to a religious freedom issue than a race issue. But guess what? Under current law religion isn't a protected class to the same extent race is.

Lastly, I leave you with an analogy I gave earlier. I believe in drug decriminalization, but I don't agree with using recreational drugs. One way drugs are being somewhat decriminalized is through medical marijuana. I'm not a big fan of prescription drug benefits, but they exist. If medical marijuana became legal nationally, I would have a problem with expanding Medicare D to cover medical marijuana. I would not argue "Well this needs to be equalized just because prozac users get Medicare D". I don't think that would somehow make me against medical marijuana. Maybe you would. Now take that same analogy, replace prescription drugs with heterosexual marriage and gay marriage with medical marijuana and maybe, just maybe you can understand the position of probably 90% of the people you disagree with on this issue who happen to be pro liberty.

Fair enough, and I appreciate the clarification and I appreciate the link to Ron Paul's statement. I would disagree with your assessment of the current legality of gay marriage, though. Right now in California, even though Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional (twice now, I think), knowing that there are appeals pending, there is still some kind of stay or injunction in place so the rulings don't count for anything yet. It's still not possible to legally get a marriage certificate in California if you're a couple of gays, and apparently won't be until this is heard by the Supreme Court.

I'll admit I don't know the situation in every state, but the other issue is, there are all these Federal laws regulating marriage. Especially the ones recognizing marriage and granting all kinds of tax benefits. So, even in states where it's legal, if the Federal government does not recognize someone's marriage, it is holding them to a different standard and they get taxed more than the next married couple as a result.

Then there's the issue of benefits. Sally Ride, the astronaut, had a partner of many years (I think it was 27 years?) but since they are not able to be married under any Federal definition, the partner gets no benefits upon her death. (Whether the Federal benefits are a good or bad thing is another question of course, but the point is, some people are denied them while others aren't, and I think that's unfair.)

There may not be anyone "forcing" gays not to get married in many states, but I wonder what would happen if a gay married couple took tax deductions on their Federal income taxes, and then they were told those deductions were invalid and they had to pay up, and then they refused to pay what the IRS was demanding? I imagine government force would come into play at some point in order to collect those taxes because the couple wasn't really married in the eyes of the IRS and weren't entitled to those deductions.

Even if I'm wrong about any of the above, the problem still is, there are people trying very hard to write laws to make it illegal for gays to marry. They're spending tons of money to do it. I don't think it's OK. To me it's a step backward for Liberty and a step backward for freedom of religion, so I oppose efforts to write laws limiting the ability of gays to get married. So as long as Chick-Fil-A donates money to those organizations, I just won't spend my money there.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Also -- I sincerely apologize if anything I said pissed you off, jmdrake, that certainly wasn't my intention and I also apologize if I misunderstood your position on the issue. Thanks.