August 1st is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[hornadylnl]

I guess content of speech determines how important the freedom of speech is to some.

From what I have read the 1st Amendment was primarily put there to protect political speech. The little dictators wearing black robes have changed that intent over the years. I don't think liars, that are an insult to our country and especially our vets, should be protected.

Was Cathy's words political speech? I'm reading here that he's not advocating for a gay marriage ban so his words aren't political and therefore not protected, correct?

 

[miguel's sister]

Our boss bought lunch yesterday (anyone who wanted it) and he was in line for almost 2 hours. Last night I heard it was a 3 hour wait.

I had a Spicy chicken cool wrap and waffle fries. Mmmm good. Also bought some nuggets for dinner.


Using the words Chicago and values in the same sentence is ridiculous.

 

[Roadie]

Actually Im kinda supporting them in that aspect as I want a equality in marriage but hate that free speech is being not respected as gun control is such a hot topic that we could be next after if us gays become a none issue.

I just wasnt able to go because of the crowd and our chick fil a is not very close. I really dont want politicans seeing that they can ban what they dont like as I have a feeling we gun owners are next on the chopping block and itll be more widespread. Plus what is the stopping a antigay politican from banning a gay pride festival because they dont like it.

Glad to have your perspective on it. It's nice on these kinds of threads to have comments from someone who is actually directed affected by the issues being discussed..

Good point! GLBT people never have to face being assaulted, beaten, killed, fired, kicked out of their homes, denied jobs, or anything like that so I guess they don't have any reason to feel put upon and should just shut up about that whole mess and just tolerate the fact that some people don't like them. It's all about tolerance afterall!

My apologies for diving into this cesspool. I knew I shouldn't have, and since my POV isn't welcome by many here, I'll exercise my freedoms and stop reading this thread.

See Harry's post and get back to me.

 

[Designer99]

Contradiction gets the last laugh!

 

[Smokepole]

The issue that seems to be missing is the violation of 1st amendment rights that the owner of Chik-fil-a is trying to accomplish that started this whole thing.

The man is trying to force his religious view into law.

The 1st gives me the right to reject his religion and demand that it be kept out of the law I am required to follow.

People seem to just gloss over that fact because they happen to agree with his idea.

However taking that position is rather short sided. Because next time it might be a religious view you don't agree with.

What happens when we get a large Muslim population in this country and they start trying to force their religious views into the law?
Their religious book says eating bacon is a sin. And many of them take that fairly seriously.

It is the same principle with the chicken man. His religious book says homosexuality is a sin. And many of those followers take that fairly seriously.

Why should the chicken man or the Muslim get to force their religious belief on me via the law?

The Founding Fathers would have rejected both notions as anti-freedom and anti-American. We are free to worship as we want and one can not force another to worship the same via the Government.

And yes the idiots in Chicago and Boston or wherever where completely wrong in wanting to ban this business in their cities. That is a totally separate issue even though it is also related to the 1st amendment.
However supporting one wrong in demonstration against another does not equal things out. Both are still wrong and both should be stopped.

Really?! Where do I start?

Have you even bothered to read and pay even the slightest bit of attention to the whole thing? Or did you just forget the purple. Or do you intentionally twist and obfuscate to further an agenda?

First - The whole mess is the result of Mr. Cathy being interviewed by a religious publication and responding to a question about his views on same-sex marriage. Another publication read the piece and reported on it. This started the whole mess. NOWHERE is there any evidence that there is any discrimination practiced by the man's company or any violations of anyone's 1st Amendment rights whether employee or patron. Anywhere.

Second - you obviously need a refresher on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They limit THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S reach. And later Amendments and court decisions have extended the limitations of the B of R to state and local governments. There is no possible way for Dan Cathy or anyone else to force their political or religious views on the country by themselves. Nor is there any evidence that he wants to. And if you are referring his donations to a political group that is against gay-marriage, he is no different than the tens of thousands on the other side of the issue funneling millions of dollars to political action groups attempting to force us to condone and accept what we do not believe in. No difference whatsoever. Just joining like minded folks. Both sides.

Third - The 1st Amendment is meant to guarantee the exercise of free speech, read: the free exchange of ideas. Especially the political. And if you actually read anything from and/or about our Founding Fathers you would know this and understand that they would approve of this debate right up to the part where you have people trying to destroy other people for simply having an opinion other than their own. And my guess is that from that point they would probably say that you pretty much deserve what you get. Up to a point obviously - Don't want anyone trying to say that I said the FF's would approve of killing someone for having a different point of view. There is enough obfuscation going on here.

And lastly, about the Muslims and Sharia Law. Not Dan Cathy or anyone else on the opposite side of your view even remotely want to kill anyone. They would just prefer not to see something that has never been practiced become standard practice.Sharia Law on the other hand would seek to kill for just being gay or not being Muslim and many other things. Those on the other side of your argument don't want to kill anyone. The two aren't even in the same star system.

 

[CarmelHP]

Contradiction gets the last laugh!

Is the owner saying that he disapproves of homosexual marriage being "anti-gay." Really, does he say to kill or imprison gays? Does he say, "don't hire gays or rent or sell them housing?" This ridiculous rhetoric that you have to be in absolute lockstep with every element of the gay agenda or you're being "anti-gay" or "homophobic" is absolute horse ." That same agenda is being pushed and promoted by the same "progressive" pieces of that push and promote gun bans, and government healthcare. Why does one have to endorse every jot and tittle of every desire of gay activists to not be "anti-gay."

 

[Smokepole]

The only violation of Cathy's freedom of speech is governments attempting to keep him from opening stores. AGREE Yet I don't see anyone here interested in taking away government's ability to do that. The government doesn't have that direct ability, but those three so far want to. And people are showing their support for CFA and displeasure with 3 mayors by supporting Cathy & CFA.

Nobody is putting a muzzle on Cathy preventing him from speaking his opinion. I've seen businesses vilified here for their anti 2A policies. It's no different. As a consumer in the free market (what's actually left of it), I can choose to boycott any business for any reason I see fit. I boycotted a gas station for over a year until they came under new ownership. Why? Every time I'd pay at the pump, I'd have to go inside and wait in line for 5+ minutes to get my receipt because they wouldn't put paper in the pump printers. Is that trivial? Yes, but it's my right to do so. True, but the A2A bus's directly effect you if you are interested in their product. CFA doesn't.

I'm not stupid. I can watch the media frenzy over this Chick-fil-a story and still form my own opinion about it. It seems as though some want to prevent the media from telling this story. Why? Where's their first amendment right?

Nobody wants to keep the media from reporting the news. Most of us however know that the media isn't doing their job correctly. True journalists are supposed to report ALL of the facts accurately, completely, in context and without slant or innuendo. Bland and accurate. Professional. But most are incapable of this anymore. The same is not expected of the blogosphere and the OP/EDS. They are opinion and should be.

And as I have said, everyone is entitled to their opinion whatever it is.

 

[jgreiner]

I stopped by the one in Lafayette at 9 pm last night. Hundreds and hundreds waiting to get served. Cars backed up to the east almost to the interstate.

I will be stopping by Friday most likely now. But it was an awesome sight to see.

 

[jgreiner]

The issue that seems to be missing is the violation of 1st amendment rights that the owner of Chik-fil-a is trying to accomplish that started this whole thing.

The man is trying to force his religious view into law.

The 1st gives me the right to reject his religion and demand that it be kept out of the law I am required to follow.

People seem to just gloss over that fact because they happen to agree with his idea.

However taking that position is rather short sided. Because next time it might be a religious view you don't agree with.

What happens when we get a large Muslim population in this country and they start trying to force their religious views into the law?
Their religious book says eating bacon is a sin. And many of them take that fairly seriously.

It is the same principle with the chicken man. His religious book says homosexuality is a sin. And many of those followers take that fairly seriously.

Why should the chicken man or the Muslim get to force their religious belief on me via the law?

The Founding Fathers would have rejected both notions as anti-freedom and anti-American. We are free to worship as we want and one can not force another to worship the same via the Government.

And yes the idiots in Chicago and Boston or wherever where completely wrong in wanting to ban this business in their cities. That is a totally separate issue even though it is also related to the 1st amendment.
However supporting one wrong in demonstration against another does not equal things out. Both are still wrong and both should be stopped.

Wow......the fail is strong in this one.

 

[Denny347]

True, EXCEPT, I don't see where any of the other issues that you listed resulting in some group calling for boycotts of any kind as there was here. The GLBT crowd was calling for boycotts of C-F-A because of Dan Cathy's PERSONAL views on gay marriage and who he donates money to. Not his company's business/hiring practices. Conservatives (and many traditional Liberals) were showing their support of him and THOSE RIGHTS by staging an ANTI-BOYCOTT rally so to speak, by supporting his product. Which, by the way, will likely continue with increased residual sales for a few days or so and most likely more than offset any boycott losses by a few misguided souls.


I don't see where anyone has faced any boycotts for espousing any of the other issues that you stated. Conservatives face this stuff on what can seem an almost regular basis. This one hit a particularly raw nerve that gets hit A LOT. Most of the people that I know are sick and tired of being called HOMOPHOBE, INTOLERANT, HATER and/or anything else that one can think of simply for not holding the view that homosexuality is normal and/or agreeing with everything that the Left and the GLBT crowd want us to and toeing that line.

This is how the Right does it, though quiet, visible, support and where they spend their money. We do it through peaceable assembly and other rational, respectful showings of support. The Left does it through militant assembly and tactics (many times destructful), always spoiling for the fight (it may not start out that way, but almost always devolves to it). Because with the Left it is most always about the FIGHT. Read: Right = MATURE, Left = JUVENILE. And don't tell me that's not true. There are too many examples of both. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (as for most things), for both sides, but they are few and tend to prove the rule.

This is all about Political Correctness and as I said before, Political Correctness is ALWAYS Political and RARELY Correct.

The GLBT decided to protest the business based on the owner's comments. I get it and "knock yourselves out". Same with the counter protesters aka supporters...I get that and "go knock yourselves out". Both side should be able to express their opinion based on buying or not buying their product. Same as the owner should be allowed to express their opinion. Fair is fair...I got no beef with any of that. What sticks in my craw is NOT calling a spade a spade. Maybe I missed it but I did not think the GLBT protest was to keep the owner's from expressing their view...only that they disagree with that view. There was no loss of "freedom of speech" nor threat of that...only the message. SO, when you counter a protest for gay rights...you end up on the opposite side of that issue. Does that not make sense? The owners say they support Biblical marriage and the protesters take issue with that. So the counter protesters support the Biblical marriage view as the owners do. The BS with the local governments not giving permits to the business goes on every day for any number of reasons. My father in law was a city building inspector here in Indy and has told me about the political BS they has to dish out...he quit because of that. No one is tying to keep Chick Fil A owners from speaking..that it a Red Herring, the issue is WHAT they had to say. So it is rather meaningless to say "We are only here to support their right to say what they want." When no one was saying otherwise. The issue is the content. Heck, on this very board we had members the same day the GLBT group announced a protest try to start a counter protest by OCing in the stores. What does that do? What was the desired message? They said nothing anout free speech support...they just wanted to show support to the Christian values and freak the GLBT's out by displaying guns...the fail in that is beyond words.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Nobody wants to keep the media from reporting the news. Most of us however know that the media isn't doing their job correctly. True journalists are supposed to report ALL of the facts accurately, completely, in context and without slant or innuendo. Bland and accurate. Professional. But most are incapable of this anymore. The same is not expected of the blogosphere and the OP/EDS. They are opinion and should be.

And as I have said, everyone is entitled to their opinion whatever it is.

This so-called "Professional Standard" is a transitory thing in the annals of journalism; in the realm of politics, it never was so and likely never will be true in the future.

 

[hornadylnl]

Nobody wants to keep the media from reporting the news. Most of us however know that the media isn't doing their job correctly. True journalists are supposed to report ALL of the facts accurately, completely, in context and without slant or innuendo. Bland and accurate. Professional. But most are incapable of this anymore. The same is not expected of the blogosphere and the OP/EDS. They are opinion and should be.

And as I have said, everyone is entitled to their opinion whatever it is.

My opinion is that we need to shrink government. We need to strip the government of the ability to punish those who exorcise speech. We also need to get the government out of marriage. That means that I as a Christian should not call on the government to ban gay marriage. Because a government that can tell Adam and Steve that they can't get married has the power to interfere with my ability to marry whomever I want.


__________

My church took a bus to Chick-fil-a last night. I don't know how many went. I agree with Cathy's opinion so long as he isn't trying to use government to carry out his opinion. I'd be willing to bet 95%+ in my church of 200+ support a gay marriage ban. Most people are unable to see the potential ramifications of the powers they grant government should their opinion ever become the minority. The government gun we point at others today can easily be turned around and pointed at us.

 

[CarmelHP]

Luckily, in regard to Chicago, the 7th Circuit has already said that the use of permitting authority to punish dissent is unconstitutional.

160 F3d 386 Olech v. Village of Willowbrook | OpenJurist

 

[Jim Duncan]

My opinion is that we need to shrink government. We need to strip the government of the ability to punish those who exorcise speech. We also need to get the government out of marriage. That means that I as a Christian should not call on the government to ban gay marriage. Because a government that can tell Adam and Steve that they can't get married has the power to interfere with my ability to marry whomever I want.


__________

My church took a bus to Chick-fil-a last night. I don't know how many went. I agree with Cathy's opinion so long as he isn't trying to use government to carry out his opinion. I'd be willing to bet 95%+ in my church of 200+ support a gay marriage ban. Most people are unable to see the potential ramifications of the powers they grant government should their opinion ever become the minority. The government gun we point at others today can easily be turned around and pointed at us.

^^^^^^^THIS!!!!!!^^^^^^^^

It is encouraging to see some get it!

 

[Smokepole]

Let's set aside the whole "freedom of religion" issue for a moment.

"The man is trying to force his religious view into law.

"The 1st gives me the right to reject his religion and demand that it be kept out of the law I am required to follow.

"People seem to just gloss over that fact because they happen to agree with his idea."

In the first place, let us suppose - for argument's sake - that Dan Cathy contributes money to organizations which advance his beliefs vis-a-vis marriage. There is no law against that; there isn't even a principle that there should be a law against that. It's called "lobbying" and it's been around since the Serpent tried to convince Eve to eat the apple.

Secondly, the First Amendment certainly gives you the right to reject his religion, but the Constitution merely says that Congress can't make a particular religion the "state religion"; it says nothing about The Peoples' ability to legislate their morality into law (which is a good thing, because people have been doing that since the aforesaid Serpent did his thing in the Garden). You are certainly able to hold your own view of "morality" and you may lobby for your brand of morality and contribute your time and treasure to the same right along with the rest of us.

What you don't have the right to do is tell the rest of us that we aren't allowed to believe in and attempt to live by and attempt to legislate our morality just because you don't agree with it. As long as your rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit (not the attainment of) Happiness are not infringed.

All of this hoopla concerning gays - every bit of it - is an attempt by a small segment of the population to impose their views of morality on everyone else and they do it in every way possible. They attempt to persuade; they attempt to teach it in schools; they attempt to popularize it on TV; they lobby the government at all levels for favorable status. All of this might be acceptable, but they don't stop there. They attempt to cut off debate by labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their POV as "haters", "homophobes", "barbarians", etc. Do you see the hypocrisy in this? They wish to control the debate by shutting out half the argument; just in the same way they tried to shut off debate on the Environment and on the morality of particular wars and on personal transportation and on individual possession of firearms and on the morality of abortions and birth control.

So basically, what you've tried to say is: Gays have a right to their opinion and all the rest of us have to shut up and accept their opinion without argument.

Rep inbound.

 

[hornadylnl]

Luckily, in regard to Chicago, the 7th Circuit has already said that the use of permitting authority to punish dissent is unconstitutional.

160 F3d 386 Olech v. Village of Willowbrook | OpenJurist

I'm sure there's still a ton of things the city could do bureaucratically to punish Chick-fil-a. This form isn't filled out properly. You need to pass that inspection, blah, blah, blah. Strip government of permitting authority altogether.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

My opinion is that we need to shrink government. We need to strip the government of the ability to punish those who exorcise speech. We also need to get the government out of marriage. That means that I as a Christian should not call on the government to ban gay marriage. Because a government that can tell Adam and Steve that they can't get married has the power to interfere with my ability to marry whomever I want.


__________

My church took a bus to Chick-fil-a last night. I don't know how many went. I agree with Cathy's opinion so long as he isn't trying to use government to carry out his opinion. I'd be willing to bet 95%+ in my church of 200+ support a gay marriage ban. Most people are unable to see the potential ramifications of the powers they grant government should their opinion ever become the minority. The government gun we point at others today can easily be turned around and pointed at us.

Exactly.

The homosexuals have been absolutely taking the wrong strategy - as have the heterosexuals. We need to get government out of the business of benefitting some and not others, of recognizing marriage. Get government out of our bedrooms and out of our lives.

 

[CX1]

Really?! Where do I start?

How about by pointing out a single law that has been enacted in the last 25 years that was based solely on a belief of a religion.

The anti-gay marriage movement has no argument against gay marriage other then what is written in their religious text. We do not need to start a modern practice of basing our laws this way. Maybe the next law will be about mixing fabrics or requiring us to have magical underwear.

I am against any suggested law that is based only on the view point of a particular religious belief. This case just happens to be about homosexually. But it would not matter if it was about anything that was only a religious belief.

The United States is not a theocracy and I do not wish it to become one. When we being to base our modern laws on the view point of a particular religion then we are heading down the slippery slope of becoming one.

 

[Denny347]

Luckily, in regard to Chicago, the 7th Circuit has already said that the use of permitting authority to punish dissent is unconstitutional.

160 F3d 386 Olech v. Village of Willowbrook | OpenJurist

As it should be.

 

[Denny347]

I'm sure there's still a ton of things the city could do bureaucratically to punish Chick-fil-a. This form isn't filled out properly. You need to pass that inspection, blah, blah, blah. Strip government of permitting authority altogether.

2 sets of rules. As I have brought up before, my FIL was a building inspector for Indy but has since quit. His bosses wanted him to hammer the "small guys" or homeowners for little code violations when building or similar. But when he went to enforce the same code for the big contractors, he was told to leave them alone. He hated that. He didn't listen and went ahead and enforced them all equally...he got yelled at a lot. There are so many ways to get a "stop work" order slapped on a new business construction...that would be worse than a non approval to build on the site.