Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by wolfsburg2

If you hold someone down then yes you are a hatemonger.

The typical comeback from the hateful side is literally the I'm rubber you're glue defense.

Call me hateful and intolerant for being intolerant of your hatefulness. Brilliant!

But again, there is a difference. Your marriage isn't annulled when a gay person marries. You are taking something from someone. Those of us on the other side aren't taking anything from you or holding you down.

So the majority of Americans (even in California), are hatemongers. Got it.

At least you don't paint with broad strokes.

[ClayHbg]

Let and let live.

The Golden Rule.

Judge not, and you shall not be judged.

Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned.

...oh wait....nevermind.....that would be just a little too Christ-like for far too many Christian Americans these days.

[wolfsburg2]

I'll gladly be the minority. Because the generally public is so swift to change. Being the majority doesn't make you right. It's he core of this debate. We, and I use that loosely, are heterosexual so that must be "right" because we are the majority or because the bible tells us so. And that's all well and good, until you trying and legislate it. The government has no business in marriage. The church can absolutely stand strong, not marry gays and object. It's when they oppress the people that have a different view where we get into hate, bigotry, ignorance. I don't care about anyone's position, I'm not trying to hangs the world or spur social evolution. I will argue with anyone who wants to oppress people of any gender, race or sexual orientation. On the chik fila point, like index folks were already going there for food. They have lost customers by taking this position. I don't see how they gain business when they isolate a part of their market. You must know more about business than I do though. Lose customers, profit!

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by wolfsburg2

I'll gladly be the minority. Because the generally public is so swift to change. Being the majority doesn't make you right. It's he core of this debate. We, and I use that loosely, are heterosexual so that must be "right" because we are the majority or because the bible tells us so.

And that's all well and good, until you trying and legislate it. The government has no business in marriage. The church can absolutely stand strong, not marry gays and object. It's when they oppress the people that have a different view where we get into hate, bigotry, ignorance.

I don't care about anyone's position, I'm not trying to hangs the world or spur social evolution. I will argue with anyone who wants to oppress people of any gender, race or sexual orientation.

On the chik fila point, like index folks were already going there for food. They have lost customers by taking this position. I don't see how they gain business when they isolate a part of their market. You must know more about business than I do though.

Lose customers, profit!

I guess my difference is, I'm willing to disagree with someone without calling them a hatemonger. The general public may very well be wrong on this debate. That's fine. They've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again.

But I'm not willing to call them hatemongers. When you accuse someone of hatred, it's a pretty tall accusation. And I think it's beyond disingenuous to lump people who support only traditional marriage in with the Westboro Baptist "Church" or those who support things like hate crimes, or say vile hateful disgusting things about others.

You can tell me I'm wrong all day long. I respect your opinion, I really do. But when you tell me I'm a 'hatemonger' and you say that over half the country's population are hatemongers - then we get to a point where I really don't think you're changing anyone's mind.

[Clambake]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

No, it won't, if the amount of sales lost due to boycott are replaced by an equal or greater amount of sales to people who support the CEO's stance. The fact that the majority of people support same-sex only marriage (again, WHETHER RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY), not to mention the line of cars in their drive through the day the news came out, would indicate that yours is not a foregone conclusion.

I understand that you WANT them to be hurt by their actions, but the evidence is against that being the case.

There isn't sufficient evidence to date with Chick Fil A to know if they are hurt or not by their actions.    But if we look at other case studies, I think the evidence will generally show that companies or their executives taking stances related to any restrictions of rights will in the long run be damaged by those positions.

One example was seen in California, where Doug Manchester heavily funded Proposition 8 (to prevent gay marriage) several years ago; Manchester owns publishing businesses and a number of top hotels including the downtown San Diego Hyatt and the Grand Del Mar (with its highly related golf course).    Although there were many supporters, numerous conventions and large groups canceled their events at his hotels along with many individuals changing their plans.    The long term impacts were significant, forcing Manchester to make changes in his stance and approach.

[duckhook3]

Stewart Cinks tweet made me laugh, it's so embarrasingly stupid.

[rustyredcab]

"hate-monger" is too strong for many in this fight against allowing people equal rights for civil marriage. I do not consider my now deceased Great Grandparents to have been hate-mongers because they opposed civil rights including mixed race marriage. They were ignorant (the Wisconsin farmers never even met a black person), bigots, and wrong. But I would not lump them with the hate-mongers seen on the news in the South who "protested" outside schools against little girls entering the schools. To my Great Grandparents then, like many people now, the issue seemed as foreign and irrelevant to their lives as equal rights for women in the Middle East seem to many Americans today.

I do wish we'd be more honest in our language in this forum. I have noticed many using "conservative Christians" (or some other modifier) instead of just "Christians." I appreciate that.

Perhaps it is also time to stop referring to one side of this debate as "support for traditional marriage" instead of something more like "opposition to same same marriage." There is no "support" of man-on-woman marriage in the argument. There is just preservation of the institution of civil marriage from being enjoyed by people other than our current "tradition." Nobody is arguing to support the traditional marriages outlined in some parts of the Bible -- slaves becoming slave-wives, Kings having hundreds of wives, brother and sisters marrying, prisoners of war being made to marry their capture, rape victims being forced to marry their rapists... A true support of marriage group would be offering support to married couples. Those groups do exist and I'll bet some do excellent work supporting marriage. If you want to stop others from getting married, then call it what it is. To me, "support traditional marriage" reminds me of "separate but equal." Sounds nice until you are not allowed to sit at the lunch counter or drink from the public drinking fountain.

We should also be more honest about the civil union = civil marriage -- in everything but name -- misconception. Civil unions are not the same. http://equalitymaine.org/marriage-civil-unions-and-domestic-partnerships-comparison Again, this seems to me like "You have your own drinking fountains in the back. What's the problem? Stay in your part of the county and you'll never even know what you are missing."

Most people can not imagine what the government allowed and endorsed as recently as the 60's with segregation. Sure, a few still feel it was a good idea. There are still bigots and, as recent news has shown, ignorant hate-mongers. Bamagrad03 may even know a few folks from Alabama who still think that civil rights for all races was a mistake. If he was bamagrad80 I'd bet on it. But most know that segregationists were on the wrong side of history. As were slave owners. As were... As are those opposing the right of two people to have a civil marriage.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

"hate-monger" is too strong for many in this fight against allowing people equal rights for civil marriage. I do not consider my now deceased Great Grandparents to have been hate-mongers because they opposed civil rights including mixed race marriage. They were ignorant (the Wisconsin farmers never even met a black person), bigots, and wrong. But I would not lump them with the hate-mongers seen on the news in the South who "protested" outside schools against little girls entering the schools. To my Great Grandparents then, like many people now, the issue seemed as foreign and irrelevant to their lives as equal rights for women in the Middle East seem to many Americans today.

I do wish we'd be more honest in our language in this forum. I have noticed many using "conservative Christians" (or some other modifier) instead of just "Christians." I appreciate that.

Perhaps it is also time to stop referring to one side of this debate as "support for traditional marriage" instead of something more like "opposition to same same marriage." There is no "support" of man-on-woman marriage in the argument. There is just preservation of the institution of civil marriage from being enjoyed by people other than our current "tradition." Nobody is arguing to support the traditional marriages outlined in some parts of the Bible -- slaves becoming slave-wives, Kings having hundreds of wives, brother and sisters marrying, prisoners of war being made to marry their capture, rape victims being forced to marry their rapists... A true support of marriage group would be offering support to married couples. Those groups do exist and I'll bet some do excellent work supporting marriage. If you want to stop others from getting married, then call it what it is. To me, "support traditional marriage" reminds me of "separate but equal." Sounds nice until you are not allowed to sit at the lunch counter or drink from the public drinking fountain.

We should also be more honest about the civil union = civil marriage -- in everything but name -- misconception. Civil unions are not the same. http://equalitymaine.org/marriage-civil-unions-and-domestic-partnerships-comparison Again, this seems to me like "You have your own drinking fountains in the back. What's the problem? Stay in your part of the county and you'll never even know what you are missing."

Most people can not imagine what the government allowed and endorsed as recently as the 60's with segregation. Sure, a few still feel it was a good idea. There are still bigots and, as recent news has shown, ignorant hate-mongers. Bamagrad03 may even know a few folks from Alabama who still think that civil rights for all races was a mistake. If he was bamagrad80 I'd bet on it. But most know that segregationists were on the wrong side of history. As were slave owners. As were... As are those opposing the right of two people to have a civil marriage.

I totally agree.  Hate-mongers, to me, means something more harsh like inciting violence or wishing ill will or the like.

But bigot, ignorant, or homophobic would be more fair characterizations. I just don't see how you can be against the equal rights of any group without it being based in bigotry or ignorance.

[NuclearMike]

Frankly, I don't care about what Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A said.  He has the right to say whatever he wants.  I'll bet though, that a lot of his franchise owners don't feel the same way as he does, although I'm sure that they enjoyed being a part of the biggest sales day that the company has ever had..

I'll continue to go to Chick-Fil-A because I like their Spicy Chicken Sandwich, not because I agree with someone else's beliefs (I don't, by the way), and I'll still eat Ben and Jerry's ice cream, but not because they support gay marriage but because I like their ice cream.

[x129]

As far as it effecting Chick-fil-a, you have to wait a couple of months to see what happens. Short term you can get all sorts of boosts and declines. Long term I am thinking the boycotters have more resolve. The pro guys are not going to be eating at Chick-fil-a in 6 months to show the gays whose boss. They will get a chicken sandwich if they want one or a burger if they want that. The gay supporters on the other hand are more likely to keep on boycotting. How that nets out is hard to say. How much advertising value has Chic gotten out of this? Hard to say. In the end I am guessing all of this will have about zero effect.

The good news is no one has to miss out on this boycotting/supporting fun.  Bigots get to boycott oreos and liberals eat to show their support of freedom. Now if trading oreos for chick-fil-a may or may not be a win......

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I guess my difference is, I'm willing to disagree with someone without calling them a hatemonger. The general public may very well be wrong on this debate. That's fine. They've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again.

But I'm not willing to call them hatemongers. When you accuse someone of hatred, it's a pretty tall accusation. And I think it's beyond disingenuous to lump people who support only traditional marriage in with the Westboro Baptist "Church" or those who support things like hate crimes, or say vile hateful disgusting things about others.

You can tell me I'm wrong all day long. I respect your opinion, I really do. But when you tell me I'm a 'hatemonger' and you say that over half the country's population are hatemongers - then we get to a point where I really don't think you're changing anyone's mind.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

...Perhaps it is also time to stop referring to one side of this debate as "support for traditional marriage" instead of something more like "opposition to same same marriage."

I don't think that will happen, for the same reason that "pro-life" has always been used instead of "anti-abortion". Each side always wants their label to be positive sounding.

At any rate, good post.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Perhaps it is also time to stop referring to one side of this debate as "support for traditional marriage" instead of something more like "opposition to same same marriage." There is no "support" of man-on-woman marriage in the argument.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I don't think that will happen, for the same reason that "pro-life" has always been used instead of "anti-abortion". Each side always wants their label to be positive sounding.

You are probably right that they will spin the label however they want ... but the difference between "support for traditional marriage" and "pro-life" is that "pro life" is not incorrect or misleading.  It would be more similar to how some pro-lifers like to refer to pro-choicers as "pro-abortion."

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

"hate-monger" is too strong for many in this fight against allowing people equal rights for civil marriage. I do not consider my now deceased Great Grandparents to have been hate-mongers because they opposed civil rights including mixed race marriage. They were ignorant (the Wisconsin farmers never even met a black person), bigots, and wrong. But I would not lump them with the hate-mongers seen on the news in the South who "protested" outside schools against little girls entering the schools. To my Great Grandparents then, like many people now, the issue seemed as foreign and irrelevant to their lives as equal rights for women in the Middle East seem to many Americans today.

I do wish we'd be more honest in our language in this forum. I have noticed many using "conservative Christians" (or some other modifier) instead of just "Christians." I appreciate that.

Perhaps it is also time to stop referring to one side of this debate as "support for traditional marriage" instead of something more like "opposition to same same marriage." There is no "support" of man-on-woman marriage in the argument. There is just preservation of the institution of civil marriage from being enjoyed by people other than our current "tradition." Nobody is arguing to support the traditional marriages outlined in some parts of the Bible -- slaves becoming slave-wives, Kings having hundreds of wives, brother and sisters marrying, prisoners of war being made to marry their capture, rape victims being forced to marry their rapists... A true support of marriage group would be offering support to married couples. Those groups do exist and I'll bet some do excellent work supporting marriage. If you want to stop others from getting married, then call it what it is. To me, "support traditional marriage" reminds me of "separate but equal." Sounds nice until you are not allowed to sit at the lunch counter or drink from the public drinking fountain.

We should also be more honest about the civil union = civil marriage -- in everything but name -- misconception. Civil unions are not the same. http://equalitymaine.org/marriage-civil-unions-and-domestic-partnerships-comparison Again, this seems to me like "You have your own drinking fountains in the back. What's the problem? Stay in your part of the county and you'll never even know what you are missing."

Most people can not imagine what the government allowed and endorsed as recently as the 60's with segregation. Sure, a few still feel it was a good idea. There are still bigots and, as recent news has shown, ignorant hate-mongers. Bamagrad03 may even know a few folks from Alabama who still think that civil rights for all races was a mistake. If he was bamagrad80 I'd bet on it. But most know that segregationists were on the wrong side of history. As were slave owners. As were... As are those opposing the right of two people to have a civil marriage.

But as I said before, many people are quick to judge those who oppose gay marriage because they care not about that person's religious convictions. If you aren't particularly religious, or to a more specific point, if you're not religious at all - then all you see is some guy wanting to deny someone else rights. Because the overwhelming majority of non-religious folks absolutely marginalize what religion may mean to other people.

So they never consider an opposing side of an argument. If I argue, that I'm concerned that the slippery slope of gay marriage leads to an erosion of religious freedom, and could ultimately one day lead to pastors being forced by government to perform religious ceremonies - many atheists would just say "so what?" Religion doesn't matter to them, so it shouldn't matter to you - or ever be a guiding factor as to why anyone does anything. It's the same reason they can't, for the life of them, understand why Catholic institutions don't want to just back up the birth control truck and start handing them out.

THAT is why they're so quick to label someone like me as a hatemonger or a bigot. I can provide a laundry list of reasons why. I can say for hours that I don't think gay folks or straight folks should be viewed differently or given different rights. They don't read, hear, or consider any of it. They're just saying in their mind "blah blah blah, crazy Christian bigot."

It's closed minded. It's not interested in debate. It's my way, or the highway. As if southern Christians are the only ones capable of prejudice. Sort of like that shot about me probably knowing a bunch of racists because I'm southern. It shows your willingness to paint an entire group of people with broad strokes. I've lived in the south my whole life. And truth be told, the majority of racists I've met, were from up north.

We've got to get beyond this hard line, no room for debate, strong fisted "you must think how I think and exactly how I think it" mentality. It's the same reason nothing EVER gets done in Washington. Nobody works together to come to a solution. It's "you're going to bend to my will - or else." Which ultimately leads to a big ol fat stalemate.

[x129]

As far as the government intruding on your religious services. It hasn't happend as far as I know. The closest I can think of the mormons and polygmany but that change was internally done not imposed externally.  The government regulates employers not religion. The difference between the two is huge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

But as I said before, many people are quick to judge those who oppose gay marriage because they care not about that person's religious convictions. If you aren't particularly religious, or to a more specific point, if you're not religious at all - then all you see is some guy wanting to deny someone else rights. Because the overwhelming majority of non-religious folks absolutely marginalize what religion may mean to other people.

So they never consider an opposing side of an argument. If I argue, that I'm concerned that the slippery slope of gay marriage leads to an erosion of religious freedom, and could ultimately one day lead to pastors being forced by government to perform religious ceremonies - many atheists would just say "so what?" Religion doesn't matter to them, so it shouldn't matter to you - or ever be a guiding factor as to why anyone does anything. It's the same reason they can't, for the life of them, understand why Catholic institutions don't want to just back up the birth control truck and start handing them out.

THAT is why they're so quick to label someone like me as a hatemonger or a bigot. I can provide a laundry list of reasons why. I can say for hours that I don't think gay folks or straight folks should be viewed differently or given different rights. They don't read, hear, or consider any of it. They're just saying in their mind "blah blah blah, crazy Christian bigot."

It's closed minded. It's not interested in debate. It's my way, or the highway. As if southern Christians are the only ones capable of prejudice. Sort of like that shot about me probably knowing a bunch of racists because I'm southern. It shows your willingness to paint an entire group of people with broad strokes. I've lived in the south my whole life. And truth be told, the majority of racists I've met, were from up north.

We've got to get beyond this hard line, no room for debate, strong fisted "you must think how I think and exactly how I think it" mentality. It's the same reason nothing EVER gets done in Washington. Nobody works together to come to a solution. It's "you're going to bend to my will - or else." Which ultimately leads to a big ol fat stalemate.

[achorripsis]

bamagrad03,

People aren't calling you a bigot because you have stated that you support equal rights. The reason why you look foolish is because you give too much charity to the true bigots out there. Let me ask you this: How much time in this post did you spend defending your bigoted fellow Christians in this thread versus actually demanding social justice for homosexuals? Of course we're going to marginalize people's beliefs WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN USING THEM TO SUPPRESS THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE!

You keep mentioning this slippery slope. You know what: slippery slope arguments are generally BAD ARGUMENTS, they are in fact considered to be fallacies. I've been told that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Yet, lets assume you are correct and the concerns you have will be true. SO WHAT!?!?! That's a red-herring, why should that matter when it comes to granting people EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER LAW?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

But as I said before, many people are quick to judge those who oppose gay marriage because they care not about that person's religious convictions. If you aren't particularly religious, or to a more specific point, if you're not religious at all - then all you see is some guy wanting to deny someone else rights. Because the overwhelming majority of non-religious folks absolutely marginalize what religion may mean to other people.

So they never consider an opposing side of an argument. If I argue, that I'm concerned that the slippery slope of gay marriage leads to an erosion of religious freedom, and could ultimately one day lead to pastors being forced by government to perform religious ceremonies - many atheists would just say "so what?" Religion doesn't matter to them, so it shouldn't matter to you - or ever be a guiding factor as to why anyone does anything. It's the same reason they can't, for the life of them, understand why Catholic institutions don't want to just back up the birth control truck and start handing them out.

THAT is why they're so quick to label someone like me as a hatemonger or a bigot. I can provide a laundry list of reasons why. I can say for hours that I don't think gay folks or straight folks should be viewed differently or given different rights. They don't read, hear, or consider any of it. They're just saying in their mind "blah blah blah, crazy Christian bigot."

It's closed minded. It's not interested in debate. It's my way, or the highway. As if southern Christians are the only ones capable of prejudice. Sort of like that shot about me probably knowing a bunch of racists because I'm southern. It shows your willingness to paint an entire group of people with broad strokes. I've lived in the south my whole life. And truth be told, the majority of racists I've met, were from up north.

We've got to get beyond this hard line, no room for debate, strong fisted "you must think how I think and exactly how I think it" mentality. It's the same reason nothing EVER gets done in Washington. Nobody works together to come to a solution. It's "you're going to bend to my will - or else." Which ultimately leads to a big ol fat stalemate.

I don't understand how you can oppose gay marriage and, yet, immediately after that, say that you think everybody should have equal rights?  Sorry, but those two things are mutually exclusive.  You cannot say that a specific group of people should not be allowed a right, and then say you think everybody should have equal rights.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

I don't understand how you can oppose gay marriage and, yet, immediately after that, say that you think everybody should have equal rights?  Sorry, but those two things are mutually exclusive.  You cannot say that a specific group of people should not be allowed a right, and then say you think everybody should have equal rights.

I don't oppose gay's the right to marry, at least not in the legal sense. I think gay couples should be afforded the same rights as I have with my soon to be wife. Mostly, because it is none of my business. In the first part you bolded, I really was speaking in more broader terms of people who do oppose it - but still don't hate gay folks. They shouldn't be lumped in with folks of the Westboro Baptist Church ilk.

But we keep hearing that gay couples getting married won't affect others lives. And I think, for 99% of them, that's true. But there's a photographer in New Mexico who disagrees. There are churches who've been sued in court who disagree. I don't understand why we can't bring both sides to the table and say - look, these folks want to get married, these other folks want to retain their right to not be forced by the government to participate in said marriage. You get over your hangups of them getting married - because it doesn't affect you and the government will make sure you don't have to go to court because you don't want to photograph a gay wedding. If that happened, I promise you there'd be compromise.

The disconnect, for me, is this whole concept of discrimination based on sexual preference. Like I've said before - if a photographer only wants to photograph weddings that include gay couples, they should be allowed to do so, or vice versa. I can't believe that in America, if you open a business, you're not allowed to morally object to anything, any subject matter, or any person. And not only that, if you do happen to be morally convicted, you'll face penalty in court.

That's a raw deal to me.

[newtogolf]

The issue is that gays want and deserve the same rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples.  The problem is that all of these rights have been legally assigned under the title of marriage which really is related to a religious union of man and woman.  What politicians need to do is separate these benefits and rights apart from the religious aspect of marriage and be done with it.  This way religions get their sacrament back and gay couples get all the rights they deserve and everyone is happy.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I don't oppose gay's the right to marry, at least not in the legal sense. I think gay couples should be afforded the same rights as I have with my soon to be wife. Mostly, because it is none of my business. In the first part you bolded, I really was speaking in more broader terms of people who do oppose it - but still don't hate gay folks. They shouldn't be lumped in with folks of the Westboro Baptist Church ilk.

But we keep hearing that gay couples getting married won't affect others lives. And I think, for 99% of them, that's true. But there's a photographer in New Mexico who disagrees. There are churches who've been sued in court who disagree. I don't understand why we can't bring both sides to the table and say - look, these folks want to get married, these other folks want to retain their right to not be forced by the government to participate in said marriage. You get over your hangups of them getting married - because it doesn't affect you and the government will make sure you don't have to go to court because you don't want to photograph a gay wedding. If that happened, I promise you there'd be compromise.

The disconnect, for me, is this whole concept of discrimination based on sexual preference. Like I've said before - if a photographer only wants to photograph weddings that include gay couples, they should be allowed to do so, or vice versa. I can't believe that in America, if you open a business, you're not allowed to morally object to anything, any subject matter, or any person. And not only that, if you do happen to be morally convicted, you'll face penalty in court.

That's a raw deal to me.