August 1st is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[Yup!]

And how exactly is this about the 1st Amendment? CFA can say whatever it wants and the people who disagree are free to boycott and demonstrate against the business (just like the people who support CFA's anti-gay stance).

It is only about the 1st Amendment if either side begins to try to make laws that infringe upon their right to say what they want to.

As far as I'm concerned (and the Constitution which is supposed to protect our inalienable rights from Government infringement) - CFA can preach pro-slavery, or baby killing, or whatever the heck they want to preach and I have the right to boycott their business and demonstrate against them if I so choose (as long as I don't use unlawful force to prevent others from doing business with them).

Two Mayors, and one other elected official, all wrote letters on Gov't Stationary, to future landlords, and Chick Fil A, stating they were not welcomed, and the gov't would block their attempt to open new business. I'm paraphrasing, so do the research to get the facts, but thats when I got upset.

Boycot all you want, and as a Mayor, you can say "Sure, build here, but I won't ever step foot in your store, but for a Mayor to say, you Can't because I don't agree with your beliefs, that crossed the line.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

You'll have to throw out about 2500 years of legal precedent and all English Common Law and all American law prior to about 1950 because it's all based on Judeo-Christian ethics. Perhaps you'd rather live under one of the other legal systems, like the ones the Communists set up or the ones the Arabs and other Muslims seem to favor?

ALL LAW is descended from either religious principles or the whims of rulers (or some mixture of both at times).

The idea that the United States might become a theocracy is a fool's fear; one has only to look at Iran or Communist Russia - or North Korea, to see what a theocracy looks like. You mistake the idea of shared community morality for the imposition of religious rule. "Community Standards" have been with us throughout history and small special interest groups have no more right to attempt to force their version of morality on the rest of us than theocrats.

Theocracy is what you see happening in Turkey, Egypt, Libya, and, probably soon to come to Syria and Iraq as well, where Sharia is not only the religious law, it is civil law as well.

 

[Greeper]

And how exactly is this about the 1st Amendment? CFA can say whatever it wants and the people who disagree are free to boycott and demonstrate against the business (just like the people who support CFA's anti-gay stance).

It is only about the 1st Amendment if either side begins to try to make laws that infringe upon their right to say what they want to.

As far as I'm concerned (and the Constitution which is supposed to protect our inalienable rights from Government infringement) - CFA can preach pro-slavery, or baby killing, or whatever the heck they want to preach (I fully support their right to do so) and I have the right to boycott their business and demonstrate against them if I so choose (as long as I don't use unlawful force to prevent others from doing business with them). Just as those who support CFA's stance can spend more money eating at CFA and demonstrate in favor of CFA's stance (as long as they don't use unlawful force to prevent those who do not support CFAs stance from boycotting and demonstrating against them).

Agree...EXCEPT...mayors (that's the Government) came out strong against CFA and threatened to disallow their restaurants solely because of the personal views of the CEO (company's publicized views are different and mention equitable treatment to all). This is a classic 1A issue...period. Anybody who's saying otherwise is being argumentative or divisive, is not paying attention, or has an ax to grind.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What of the push to amend Constitutions to define it as only between a man and a woman? That sounds like adding something to me.
And this is in reaction to courts ruling that 'surprise it was not as illegal as once thought' and that is why the push is to get it defined in Constitutions to circumvent the courts rulings on the marriage laws as they are currently in some places. Not all States have the same marriage laws currently as Indiana. Right?

Name a modern society where homosexual marriage has been legal for more than 20 years.

Now list the civilizations that have not considered marriage to be between a man and a woman from the beginning of recorded history forward.

The purpose of marriage - the purpose of mating - is to bond the family; the father to be the protector of the mother and children; the mother to bear and rear the children. This is a species survival trait which has been formalized into the institution of marriage.

While homosexuals have been tolerated - at some level - in many societies, they have seldom been "mainstream" and never in the context of "family". While they may or may not know it, their drive for "equal rights" is just another part of the subliminal attack on the institution of the nuclear family in this country which has been ongoing since Margaret Sanger and friends decided to form an organization aimed at the stealth culling of "inferior races" under the guise of helping women. It started to hit its stride in the 60s when the federal government targeted inner city black families for "assistance" that literally disintegrated the most cohesive family group in America at that time. The rot is spreading under the guise of "alternate lifestyles", "career feminism", and political correctness.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

Is there a difference between calling someone who disagrees with your viewpoint a "hater" merely because that someone disagrees with you and a person who decides to protest the unfairness of that person being called a "hater" when that someone obviously is not?

In my view, anyone who tries to shout down his opposition with slogans and unreasonable labels rather than attempting to reason with them is a bully - and bullies need to be opposed wherever we find them.

 

[terrehautian]

Had a friend post this on facebook.

I wonder...just how many hypocrites fell for "Customer Appreciation Day". It was a great publicity stunt and money maker for CFA I'm sure. Your morals and beliefs are not maintained dependent upon where you eat. A horrible example was set, all because of free chicken, not ones support of free speech. And just for the record, free speech does not give anyone the right to hate or judge. I hope that free chicken was worth it when you're standing at the pearly gates. I will pray for you...you need it more than me.

There is many things wrong in that statement. First being free food. The company did not give out any free food. If anyone gave out any free food, it was another customer who bought a gift card and gave them out (happened from what I heard). Also, this person seemed to have thought the company started this who support day. Actually, from what I heard, Mike Huckabee did.

 

[RockofStrength]

Name a modern society where homosexual marriage has been legal for more than 20 years.



While homosexuals have been tolerated - at some level - in many societies, they have seldom been "mainstream" and never in the context of "family". While they may or may not know it, their drive for "equal rights" is just another part of the subliminal attack on the institution of the nuclear family in this country which has been ongoing since Margaret Sanger and friends decided to form an organization aimed at the stealth culling of "inferior races" under the guise of helping women.

Hold on a minute there. Have you read of Grecian and/or Roman history? Modern history (particularly that of Europe and America) has been dominated by a largely Christian or Catholic moral view, but in ancient times homosexuality was practiced openly in many places. Granted it may not have been as popular owing to the need for children in an agrarian society, but it was hardly some condemned and derided thing save in certain societies (i.e. the Israelites and a few others).

 

[IndyDave1776]

Hold on a minute there. Have you read of Grecian and/or Roman history? Modern history (particularly that of Europe and America) has been dominated by a largely Christian or Catholic moral view, but in ancient times homosexuality was practiced openly in many places. Granted it may not have been as popular owing to the need for children in an agrarian society, but it was hardly some condemned and derided thing save in certain societies (i.e. the Israelites and a few others).

I believe the general idea holds up. Even in those societies in which it was tolerated to certain degrees, it was never held up as a familial arrangement. In the most permissive cases, a man had his wife and children at home and went and buggered his male 'friend' for jollies, much as less faithful folks in our culture would have a mistress on the side. Just for fun, I will also throw in that in the Greek culture, it was considered deviate for a male to take the 'passive' role after a certain (relatively young) age, but the precise age has vanished into the mists of time (It was about 18 years ago when I took Greek history). The concept of homosexual 'marriage' as a primary family structure is entirely new to the present so far as I am aware.

 

[Smokepole]

Wow! Is your reading comprehension impaired or is it your mission to intentionally "misquote" people to skew the discussion.

Originally Posted by Smokepole
Mmmmmmmmm, okaaay, let's do this.

First there have been aaaaaay too many laws enacted in the last 25, 50, even 100 years. Our Legislative body was originally supposed to be a PAR-TIME government of citizen legislators. What you get with a full-time Governmental body is a bunch of pandering, self-important blowhards passing loads of laws, securing favors and sending money home to their districts to justify their existence and keep themselves in power.

Exactly why we don't need to add to it by making certain forms of marriage illegal.
Sorry, it's already illegal. Any change would be in the direction that YOU are looking for.

That having been said, this law isn't "based solely on a belief of a religion." There are plenty of people that don't consider themselves religious and claim no religious affiliation that support. There are atheists, agnostics and other non-religious folks that oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because they see it as not normal to nature and the traditional definition of marriage does not allow for same-sex marriage.

In all honesty are you purposing the notion that that the vast majority of those opposed to same-sex marriage are not using religious based reasons? Granted there may be a few exceptions, but from listening to them it seems they are mostly religious based reasons.
Okay, here's that comprehension thing. Go back and reread my post (copied above for your edification) and note that nowhere did I use any phrasing referring to "the vast majority". Not going to rewrite it here. You reread it. There are people that oppose on religious grounds, definitional grounds and others that see as unnatural and as such should not be called 'Marriage." I have no basis for an assumption that the "vast majority" oppose on religious grounds (a majority yes, a plurality, definitely) . And neither do you. Once you have those facts, be my guest. But until then . . . .

The vast majority of our societal laws are based on a Christian, Anglo-Saxon morals that have been around for centuries. roughly 90% of the earth's population has some religious affiliation or recognition. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and the like are all considered religions and even the most primitive of tribes have some religious practices that they follow. Religion is part of life throughout the world whether you want to admit it or not.

Marriage is an institution created by religious institutions for the recognition, support and strength of the natural heterosexual family unit (please reference original definitions and history).

I will have to disagree here somewhat. Marriage was around long before any of the current day mainstream religions. I encourage you to look here. History of Marriage | The History, Origins and Customs of Marriage
Welll, there you go again! NOT WHAT I WROTE! Nowhere did I reference "MAINSTREAM RELIGIONS." Reread please and understand that marriage predates Jesus, even Moses and the Ancient Egyptians. It's purpose was to bless and sanctify the union of a man and woman and their future offspring and family. The marriage is also to be consummated to seal that union and blessing and to take the first steps to creating the family. Same sex cannot complete this because they cannot propagate the species. Yep, I said it. Oughta get good now.

Most - myself included - don't care if government wants to recognize Civil Unions or whatever final label they are given. And if the real issue is TRULY about the LEGAL benefits, perks and privileges that would go with marriage, then what it is called should not matter as long as those things are secured for those that believe they deserve them.

So why not call them marriage since it shouldn't matter what they are called? And I don't believe the majority of the anti-same sex marriage crowd shares your opinion of being ok with the idea that same sex couples should get the same benefits of those in a traditional marriage.
Maybe I'm wrong on that, but it would seem if they were truly accepting of the idea this whole issue would have been settled a long time ago.
There is also the issue of some the laws and regulations that currently support benefits for traditional marriage may not cover civil unions as those current rules and regulations are written.

And incidentally, the U.S. is in no trouble of becoming a Theocracy. Now if the Islamists were to gain control . . . . then the LGBT crowd would have a whole other world of things to worry about.

In today's society marriage is not what is once was. Personally I do not think it will regain its luster considering the divorce rates, the rates of adultery (they have ads on TV for services specifically for people who want to cheat) and drive-thru wedding services. It is it's own parody.
I don't understand if the debate is simply over a label and not about equal rights and protections then why the traditionalists don't come up with a new term for their marriages that isn't so tarnished.

Okay, I will turn your own question back around to you. IF the issue is truly only about legal issues and benefits, why is it necessary to dump in someone else' back yard by redefining something that has NEVER meant anything else and tell them tough luck and get used to it cause you don't have a choice. Does that sound fair? You wouldn't accept it if you were gay and marriage was always a gay thing and you were told that things were changing and you didn't have a choice would you? No you wouldn't. You would see it as diminishing your marriage and your beliefs and you would put up a big ole' hairy fight. You would kick and yell and scream and stand your ground. Defending something that defines a significant part of your life and your relationships with your spouse and your God. You wouldn't let those things be diminished or marginalized.

The GLBT's are the ones that are coming to the table late in the game. And they don't have any right to force a redefinition of a centuries old institution/sacrament. IF it is only about the benefits and legal rights it will be easier, more expedient and pragmatic to just create a new type of legal jurisdiction for same-sex unions than redefining something else (but I have my own thoughts why they don't want to do that). And if that were the approach that were taken sooner it probably would have happened or would be a he!! of a lot closer than it is now with less strife.

As for the tarnished reputation of marriage as it were, that has no bearing on the issue at hand and does not give anyone the right or excuse to go about redefining it. And why would someone want to take a "tarnished" anything to begin their own institution? Doesn't make any sense. Go with something new.

Change your approach and you may just accomplish what you want without offending the masses. Novel concept.

I'm done. The soapbox is put away. I'm tired.

 

[Smokepole]

Name a modern society where homosexual marriage has been legal for more than 20 years.

Now list the civilizations that have not considered marriage to be between a man and a woman from the beginning of recorded history forward.

The purpose of marriage - the purpose of mating - is to bond the family; the father to be the protector of the mother and children; the mother to bear and rear the children. This is a species survival trait which has been formalized into the institution of marriage.

While homosexuals have been tolerated - at some level - in many societies, they have seldom been "mainstream" and never in the context of "family". While they may or may not know it, their drive for "equal rights" is just another part of the subliminal attack on the institution of the nuclear family in this country which has been ongoing since Margaret Sanger and friends decided to form an organization aimed at the stealth culling of "inferior races" under the guise of helping women. It started to hit its stride in the 60s when the federal government targeted inner city black families for "assistance" that literally disintegrated the most cohesive family group in America at that time. The rot is spreading under the guise of "alternate lifestyles", "career feminism", and political correctness.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^ Rep inbound.

It wouldn't let me since I got you earlier. I'll get you again later.

 

[GBuck]

It truly amazes me how many "lovers of freedom" give two sh**s about what someone else does with their lives, especially when it has nothing to do with anyone else. It's so hypocritical and I'm tired of it.

Can you honest to God say that two dudes getting married has any effect on the "strength" or "validity" of your marriage? If you can, I suggest you look at your relationship with your spouse and your God, whomever that may be.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

I don't agree with Chik-Fil-As view on marriage, but I will not boycott a restaurant, or any business for that matter, for simply expressing their first amendment rights.

I'm planning on going very soon.

 

[Smokepole]

It truly amazes me how many "lovers of freedom" give two sh**s about what someone else does with their lives, especially when it has nothing to do with anyone else. It's so hypocritical and I'm tired of it.

Can you honest to God say that two dudes getting married has any effect on the "strength" or "validity" of your marriage? If you can, I suggest you look at your relationship with your spouse and your God, whomever that may be.

Many people do. To them words mean things and institutions and sacraments do as well. To bastardize these things is to diminish them and remove meaning. Does the definition of the 2A mean something to you? Does the meaning of the 1st or any of the other amendments have meaning for you. How do you feel when someone tells you that the 2A won't any longer mean what IT MEANS TO YOU and has actually meant for over 2 centuries. As many have tried in the past. Maybe you should look at your relationship with your Country and your Government. Whatever that may be. Can you honest to God say that it has any affect on the "strength" or "validity" of your citizenship?

This has meaning for you (and me), but little if anything for others as we all know. They seek to say that the 2a doesn't mean what we know it does. Not the same but similar. And no less important. The definition of Marriage has never in history included same sex union. It has meaning that is goes back thousands of years and to redefine it to accommodate the whims of decided minority doesn't make sense. Just give same sex unions their own jurisdiction. It's easier.

 

[GBuck]

Many people do. To them words mean things and institutions and sacraments do as well. To bastardize these things is to diminish them and remove meaning. Does the definition of the 2A mean something to you? Does the meaning of the 1st or any of the other amendments have meaning for you. How do you feel when someone tells you that the 2A won't any longer mean what IT MEANS TO YOU and has actually meant for over 2 centuries. As many have tried in the past. Maybe you should look at your relationship with your Country and your Government. Whatever that may be. Can you honest to God say that it has any affect on the "strength" or "validity" of your citizenship?
`
A) The 2A was written to protect a right given to me by my creator. Marriage is far from a right.
B) I don't give a crap what someone else thinks the meaning of the 2A is as long as it doesn't change my application and rights therein codified.
C) What someone else thinks, and I can say this Honest To God, has NO bearing on how I feel about the strength and vailidity of my citizenship.

This has meaning for you (and me), but little if anything for others as we all know. They seek to say that the 2a doesn't mean what we know it does. Not the same but similar. And no less important. The definition of Marriage has never in history included same sex union. It has meaning that is goes back thousands of years and to redefine it to accommodate the whims of decided minority is doesn't make sense. Just give same sex unions their own jurisdiction. It's easier.

It would actually be easier to just remove the government from the equation, but what do I know?

 

[thebishopp]

Two Mayors, and one other elected official, all wrote letters on Gov't Stationary, to future landlords, and Chick Fil A, stating they were not welcomed, and the gov't would block their attempt to open new business. I'm paraphrasing, so do the research to get the facts, but thats when I got upset.

Boycot all you want, and as a Mayor, you can say "Sure, build here, but I won't ever step foot in your store, but for a Mayor to say, you Can't because I don't agree with your beliefs, that crossed the line.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this. The government needs to stay out of it. We express our agreement/pleasure or disagreement/displeasure with a business by choosing to either patronize or boycott it as well as demonstrate either for or against it.

There is no infringement on any constitutionally protected right when private citizens do so lawfully (meaning no use of unlawful force or threats of force). To put it in 2nd Amendment perspective it's like a private citizen / business that decides it will or will not allow weapons on their premises (or anything else for that matter).

Heck I even support a private citizen's / business's right to serve who they want to (I'm also against the "smoking ban"). It's up to us as the citizenry to show if we agree or disagree with their stances (usually by choosing to shop or boycott as well as informing the rest of the public about it).

Of course the downside to the responsibility being "we the people", is that "we the people" don't really care what a business supports/represents as long as there is a good sale on or if they really want that new tv (or whatever). They'll make up an excuse to overlook their originally stated objections. Mcdonalds could come out publicly supporting slavery at their locations and if the burgers are good or cheap enough (or if they also support slavery but don't want to come right out and say it) you will have a bunch of people claiming they are supporting McDonalds because it is a "freedom of expression" issue.

In this case you got a bunch of people who don't like gay people. Maybe they don't say so publicly so as not to appear like bigots but deep down they know what they really feel. They will either have this belief for "religious", "moral", or "historical" reasons but bigotry is bigotry. So instead of just coming right out and saying it, we have the "I support CFA's "1st Amendment Rights".

Pshhh...

If they have a problem with the politicians trying unconstitutional measures against CFA then they need to start protesting those politicians. Not lending financial support to CFA. Doens't make sense. The problem is with those politicians overstepping their authority (isn't that a common problem?). Protest them, try to get them removed from office. That's the course of action if one is really upset about their attempts to violate CFA's "1st Amendment rights". Not giving more money to CFA... unless of course one actually supports CFAs stance, which is fine, just don't try to BS the rest of us.

 

[hornadylnl]

Name a modern society where homosexual marriage has been legal for more than 20 years.

Now list the civilizations that have not considered marriage to be between a man and a woman from the beginning of recorded history forward.

The purpose of marriage - the purpose of mating - is to bond the family; the father to be the protector of the mother and children; the mother to bear and rear the children. This is a species survival trait which has been formalized into the institution of marriage.

While homosexuals have been tolerated - at some level - in many societies, they have seldom been "mainstream" and never in the context of "family". While they may or may not know it, their drive for "equal rights" is just another part of the subliminal attack on the institution of the nuclear family in this country which has been ongoing since Margaret Sanger and friends decided to form an organization aimed at the stealth culling of "inferior races" under the guise of helping women. It started to hit its stride in the 60s when the federal government targeted inner city black families for "assistance" that literally disintegrated the most cohesive family group in America at that time. The rot is spreading under the guise of "alternate lifestyles", "career feminism", and political correctness.

Far more children's lives have been harmed by divorce and subsequent absentee parenting than having 2 parents of the same sex. We should ban divorce.

 

[sepe]

Far more children's lives have been harmed by divorce and subsequent absentee parenting than having 2 parents of the same sex. We should ban divorce.

We should ban marriage. No marriage, no divorce. Problem solved!!!

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Who cares..

What really matters is this...

GBuck.. How in the world do you post 15 thousand times in one year?

That must be some kind of INGO record!

 

[cobber]

When are Rahm and councilman Morono going to take on the Catholic Church as not having Chicago values?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-02/news/ct-met-cardinal-george-chick-fill-a-0802-20120802_1_gay-marriage-chicago-values-chicago-cardinal-francis-george

I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?

 

[Denny347]

Many people do. To them words mean things and institutions and sacraments do as well. To bastardize these things is to diminish them and remove meaning.

Ha, in today's society? Laughable. Yeah...us Hetros have the market cornered on the sanctity of marriage...50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.