Chick-fil-A Kiss in???

[Bunnykid68]

What's your point?

There are lots of things we do that aren't rights. There's nothing in the Constitution that says I can drive a car on public highways, but I meet the requirements established by the government to do it and I harm no one when I do, so I'm allowed to do it. There's no reason for me NOT to do it.

If you put a 90 year old man and a 20 year old woman on a desert island and come back in a hundred years you won't find any progeny either (probably anyway). Does that mean a 90 year old man can't marry a 20 year old woman? Potential for procreation is utterly irrelevant to the issue.

No, gay marriage isn't a right. Neither is STRAIGHT marriage. But what earthly reason is there to prohibit it? Just because some people don't LIKE it?

I disagree with the driving a car part. We were not always required to have a DL to drive a car or even register said cars.

You do not honestly think I dont have a right to travel freely by any means I can afford?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I disagree with the driving a car part. We were not always required to have a DL to drive a car or even register said cars.

You do not honestly think I dont have a right to travel freely by any means I can afford?

It was merely an example. I don't think anyone should be required to have a driver's license. The only reason they exist (like most licensing requirements) is to create revenue for the government.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It was merely an example. I don't think anyone should be required to have a driver's license. The only reason they exist (like most licensing requirements) is to create revenue for the government.

OK, I was just checking , had me worried for a minute

 

[hornadylnl]

That makes a nice slogan and I want to believe it. However, I've observed far too often that many of the same people that I might defend due to this principle in one situation are actively trying to take away our liberty in other respects. This results in two groups defending one sides rights and only one defending the second sides rights. The first group will win more often than the second. The predictable result is a gradual shift in the legal/regulatory environment to favor the first group. Those in the second group have fulfilled the first half of the slogan, but have diminished liberty in the end.

The whole Chick-fil-a event is prima facie evidence of this. On the one side, you have those that want to support equal rights for gays, pushing to redefine marriage to accommodate them. They have the support not only of themselves, but also of those who really don't have any direct interest, but believe that it is a matter of fairness or liberty to support them.

On the other, you have Dan Cathy and others like him who believes that marriage should be strictly between one man and one woman. His reasons are due to faith and a belief for what is best for society in the long run. There is no evidence that he hates anyone. He has not discriminated in employment, customer service or otherwise. He has strictly exercised his first amendment rights. As a consequence, he and his company have been subject to hate speech, crimes against his property and employees, and illegal government interference in his business. If the supporters of gay marriage had recognized his free speech rights, I wouldn't be concerned, but instead this has become another example of one side pushing for one set of rights while actively campaigning against other rights.

Gay marriage is an example of this phenomenon, but by no means the only one. It isn't enough to defend this newly defined right, those who support it feel the need to act against the rights of others in the process. This is the mechanism by which political correctness trumps liberty and grows in influence. Two sides recognize one aspect of liberty, while only one side recognizes the second. Consequently, although I want the slogan to be true, I cannot in believe it.

Edit: I'll offer an alternate slogan. Those who demand tolerance while not exercising the same are not worthy of tolerance.

Getting in the mud and wrestling with a pig approach hasn't worked out so well either. Do we ban gay marriage because of the few who are militant about it? If so, that's a pretty good argument for gun control.

 

[pudly]

Getting in the mud and wrestling with a pig approach hasn't worked out so well either. Do we ban gay marriage because of the few who are militant about it? If so, that's a pretty good argument for gun control.

There should have been no news at all here. The entire issue is about suppression of free speech. It isn't about "the few who are militant about it". The entire attack on Chick-fil-a is about suppression of his rights. As far as I can see Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-a have done nothing to hurt anybody, but have been attacked. They are a very community minded and charitable organization and these kinds of attacks shouldn't be tolerated by those who believe in freedom.

Since you took it to the gun control issue, I'll go there as well. Although I'm certainly not in favor of gun control, I do not look for ways to intimidate those who disagree into being silent. They have a right to their opinion. They have a right to not own firearms. I respect that and their right to speak. Too many on the other side do not respect either aspect of my freedoms.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

There should have been no news at all here. The entire issue is about suppression of free speech. It isn't about "the few who are militant about it". The entire attack on Chick-fil-a is about suppression of his rights. As far as I can see Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-a have done nothing to hurt anybody, but have been attacked. They are a very community minded and charitable organization and these kinds of attacks shouldn't be tolerated by those who believe in freedom.

Since you took it to the gun control issue, I'll go there as well. Although I'm certainly not in favor of gun control, I do not look for ways to intimidate those who disagree into being silent. They have a right to their opinion. They have a right to not own firearms. I respect that and their right to speak. Too many on the other side do not respect either aspect of my freedoms.

Dan Cathy's free speech rights have not been suppressed. He can go on the news everyday of his life, or write letters to newspapers, or stand in front of his restaurants holding a sign saying that he believes in the biblical interpretation of marriage.

Citizens are free to disagree with him. They can encourage people not to patronize his restaurants. They can picket them. The can give interviews stating that they are outraged and offended by his views. They can vote with their wallets.

Opposing gay marriage philosophically is one thing...giving money to organizations that want to actually INTERFERE with people who have harmed no one and who want only to live their lives in freedom is another.

For anyone to use their money in such a manner is offensive to me. I have a RIGHT to be offended, and I have a right to ACT on my feelings provided I do not violate the rights of others.

If I can legally PREVENT Dan Cathy from receiving dollars that he will use to hurt his fellow citizens I will do so.

 

[pudly]

If I can legally PREVENT Dan Cathy from receiving dollars that he will use to hurt his fellow citizens I will do so.

Political correctness is all about about saying I'm offended and therefore you don't have a right to your side of the discussion. Did I misunderstand you or did you just say that you want to use the law to prevent him from practicing his business? Also, I'm honestly not aware of any way that Dan Cathy has hurt his fellow citizens. Can you provide any examples?

 

[NYFelon]

He said he will engage in legal activity to deny him commerce. Boycotts and activism that do not violate others' rights are legal activity. For example, he chooses not to eat their and discourages others from eating there, explaining why. This is using legal activity to deny him commerce. That's quite the distinction from using the force of law or government to deny him commerce as those such as Rahm Emanuel, and the Mayor of (I think it was) Boston, who has since recanted on that stance.

 

[hornadylnl]

The only people to suppress Cathy's rights are those in government who are using their influence to pevent him from opening stores. His protesters have every right to voice their opinion and boycott that he does.

My right to free speech doesn't negate my oppositions right to free speech. I have no right to get up and speak my piece without the possibility of a counter argument. Just the other day, a guy was asking for appliance recommendations and a few said they will never buy GE appliances due to their political stances. Are they violating GE's freedom of speech? Their are a few ffl's on here I will NEVER do business with because of their opinions. Am I infringing on their right to free speech?

 

[foszoe]

My solution: End all "perks" of being married from a govt point of view. Allow the gay community to have a ceremony prior to cohabitation if they wish to do so. Let the gay community call this ceremony anything except marriage.

Critique away, I'm open minded.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I wonder what sort of other shenanigans the leftist agenda is trying to cover up with this "distraction." Has all the makings of a good smoke and mirrors issue to help hide something else that they don't want in the media.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Political correctness is all about about saying I'm offended and therefore you don't have a right to your side of the discussion. Did I misunderstand you or did you just say that you want to use the law to prevent him from practicing his business? Also, I'm honestly not aware of any way that Dan Cathy has hurt his fellow citizens. Can you provide any examples?

Dan Cathy has every right in the world to his side of the discussion, and I would do nothing to deny him that right. I would not use law to prevent him from engaging in legal commerce, and I vehemently oppose the loud-mouth mayors
who are trying to gain politically correct brownie points by doing so.

Can I give individual examples where he has hurt his fellow citizens? I cannot. I can say that by his own admission he financially supports organizations whose stated purpose is to deny marriage to citizens who have harmed no one.

If you shoot at me and miss me, you're going to jail. The fact that your willingness to murder me exceeds your marksmanship skills is irrelevant. TRYING to hurt me is every bit as anti-social as succeeding.

 

[terrehautian]

My solution: End all "perks" of being married from a govt point of view. Allow the gay community to have a ceremony prior to cohabitation if they wish to do so. Let the gay community call this ceremony anything except marriage.

Critique away, I'm open minded.

I have seen this posted by a few others and myself, this would end any opposition to the issue I have now. I even said to go as far as let churches decide who they let get married versus being in a union.

 

[gyeakle]

I just wish the GOV. Would stop telling us what we can and can't do with our business. If you own it it's your do whatever you want aslong your not breaking the law ( smoking band ) just my two cents.

 

[littletommy]

I just wish the GOV. Would stop telling us what we can and can't do with our business. If you own it it's your do whatever you want aslong your not breaking the law ( smoking band ) just my two cents.

I actually have a much bigger problem with the smoking ban than I do with the comment that touched off all of this Chic-Fil-A bull****. And FTR, I don't smoke.

 

[NavyVet]

We are afforded the freedom to associate with whomever we choose. I understand that you feel his donations to these organizations 'harm' the gay marriage movement, but it is his right to 'associate' with whomever he chooses. (be that physically or financially). Quite frankly, it the 2A folks were as committed to a cause as Mr. Cathy is to his, the defending of 2A rights would be much easier.

It is your right to not 'associate' with his business if you choose. What is the difference between 'no guns, no money' and 'no gay marriage, no money'? If you don't like what they stand for, eat elsewhere.

The question of gay marriage is not one that I have the answer to. They might get more support if they weren't operating with the 'in your face, and you have to accept it' mindset.

If we look at the public response to this whole debate with Chick-Fil-A, it can be summed up with: "Wed August 1st was not a good day to be a chicken." Apparently the vast majority of the public do not agree with you stance. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, and fights should be chosen wisely. The attack on Chick-Fil-A has not helped the cause for gay marriage. Educate don't intimidate!

Dan Cathy has every right in the world to his side of the discussion, and I would do nothing to deny him that right. I would not use law to prevent him from engaging in legal commerce, and I vehemently oppose the loud-mouth mayors
who are trying to gain politically correct brownie points by doing so.

Can I give individual examples where he has hurt his fellow citizens? I cannot. I can say that by his own admission he financially supports organizations whose stated purpose is to deny marriage to citizens who have harmed no one.

If you shoot at me and miss me, you're going to jail. The fact that your willingness to murder me exceeds your marksmanship skills is irrelevant. TRYING to hurt me is every bit as anti-social as succeeding.

 

[NavyVet]

Agreed,

Imagine having to walk into a VFW/American Legion post and tell those folks that fought and defended our rights they can't have a smoke in their own building. Cigarettes used to be issued to our veterans by our own government. I could argue the government got many of them addicted to cigarettes. When I was in the service, Coke and smoke breaks were all too common.

Our government at all levels has overstepped its authority and continues to tread on our rights. Everyone has just rolled over and let it happen. If we would enforce the constitution through the ballot box, progress can be made. It will take time, but it can happen.

<Now back to our regularly scheduled thread>

I actually have a much bigger problem with the smoking ban than I do with the comment that touched off all of this Chic-Fil-A bull****. And FTR, I don't smoke.

 

[hornadylnl]

We are afforded the freedom to associate with whomever we choose. I understand that you feel his donations to these organizations 'harm' the gay marriage movement, but it is his right to 'associate' with whomever he chooses. (be that physically or financially). Quite frankly, it the 2A folks were as committed to a cause as Mr. Cathy is to his, the defending of 2A rights would be much easier.

It is your right to not 'associate' with his business if you choose. What is the difference between 'no guns, no money' and 'no gay marriage, no money'? If you don't like what they stand for, eat elsewhere.

The question of gay marriage is not one that I have the answer to. They might get more support if they weren't operating with the 'in your face, and you have to accept it' mindset.

If we look at the public response to this whole debate with Chick-Fil-A, it can be summed up with: "Wed August 1st was not a good day to be a chicken." Apparently the vast majority of the public do not agree with you stance. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, and fights should be chosen wisely. The attack on Chick-Fil-A has not helped the cause for gay marriage. Educate don't intimidate!

So are those organizing OC events here operating with the in your face, and you have to accept it' mindset?

Funny how activism is great if people agree with the cause and terrible if they don't.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So are those organizing OC events here operating with the in your face, and you have to accept it' mindset?

I believe a number of them would answer 'yes' to this question based on many of the comments regarding OC events I've read over the last year or two.

 

[shibumiseeker]

So are those organizing OC events here operating with the in your face, and you have to accept it' mindset?

Funny how activism is great if people agree with the cause and terrible if they don't.

That's along with the "I'll talk about my beliefs all day long, but if you mention yours and they are different from mine then you're being 'in-your-face' about them" crowd.