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

[zipazoid]

Here's what's great about America:

A guy can start a fast-food chain & run it however he damn well pleases.

That guy can say whatever he damn well pleases.

And I can choose not to eat there if I don't want to.

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Isn't that the equivalent of the lame "How could I possibly be a racist ... I have black friends!" excuse?

On the other hand, the ability to choose to accept or deny business is not black and white, there are shades of grey to it.  I mean if I was a painter and somebody wanted to commission me to paint a picture of two people having sex (gay or straight), or a gruesome picture of the bear he shot on a hunting trip, or some other random examples, I agree that I should certainly have a right to say no thanks to that.  And an example of something a little similar to what we're talking about ... if a wedding photographer was asked to photograph a ceremony at a nudist camp, I can certainly see that he should be allowed to say 'hey, I am uncomfortable with this, no thank you.'

But the difference lies in the fact that gay people are not "subject matter," they are people.  I assume they weren't being asked to photograph them having sex.  And just as there are certainly bigots out there avoiding gay people, they are out there avoiding black people, jewish people, women, whomever, and there are ways for them to go about staying true to their religious convictions bigotry without bringing a lawsuit upon themselves.  They could be "busy" that day, or they could charge more than usual, or they could put together a portfolio of their worst work to show them that they are crappy photographers.  Whatever.  But, simply telling a gay person no because they are gay is and should be wrong.

Their ceremony is the subject matter, just like painting a mural of people having sex is the subject matter, or performing a ceremony to celebrate the ocean. As I said before, he didn't deny them service because they were gay. He denied them based on the subject matter. Just like you wouldn't want to paint a dead bear or sex. Similarly, if someone didn't agree with two divorced couples getting married, they should be allowed to turn that job down - because of the subject matter.

It is JUST like the TShirt shop that got sued for turning a down gay pride parade shirt printing job. The guy had served tons and tons of gay customers. Never once turning them down because they were gay. But the subject matter of the tshirts didn't sit right with him. The gay pride folks cried discrimination and sued him. Again, falling back to my original premise: in America, if you wish to do business, you cannot have any personal convictions. You have to be OK with everything.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Their ceremony is the subject matter, just like painting a mural of people having sex is the subject matter, or performing a ceremony to celebrate the ocean. As I said before, he didn't deny them service because they were gay. He denied them based on the subject matter. Just like you wouldn't want to paint a dead bear or sex. Similarly, if someone didn't agree with two divorced couples getting married, they should be allowed to turn that job down - because of the subject matter.

It is JUST like the TShirt shop that got sued for turning a down gay pride parade shirt printing job. The guy had served tons and tons of gay customers. Never once turning them down because they were gay. But the subject matter of the tshirts didn't sit right with him. The gay pride folks cried discrimination and sued him. Again, falling back to my original premise: in America, if you wish to do business, you cannot have any personal convictions. You have to be OK with everything.

OK, fair enough.  (I am going to assume for the sake of your argument that the guys wanted t-shirts with obscenities or graphic pornography on them and not just, say, shirts with a rainbow flag)

Like I said before though, it still does not change the fact that this has nothing to do with gay marriage being legal.  Gay people are protected as a group from discrimination already, so nothing will change, other than potentially adding a few wedding based businesses to the list of people able to discriminate against gays.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Their ceremony is the subject matter, just like painting a mural of people having sex is the subject matter, or performing a ceremony to celebrate the ocean. As I said before, he didn't deny them service because they were gay. He denied them based on the subject matter. Just like you wouldn't want to paint a dead bear or sex. Similarly, if someone didn't agree with two divorced couples getting married, they should be allowed to turn that job down - because of the subject matter.

It is JUST like the TShirt shop that got sued for turning a down gay pride parade shirt printing job. The guy had served tons and tons of gay customers. Never once turning them down because they were gay. But the subject matter of the tshirts didn't sit right with him. The gay pride folks cried discrimination and sued him. Again, falling back to my original premise: in America, if you wish to do business, you cannot have any personal convictions. You have to be OK with everything.

More accurately, you cannot bring your personal convictions to your business or if you do, prepare to accept the consequences. I'm sure Mr. Cathy knew what could happen when he became more vocal about his beliefs. I applaud him for his conviction even though I disagree with the message.

[x129]

That isn't true. He can run the business however he wants as long as he doesn't violate US laws.

No one has said that the owner can't say whatever he wants. They also get to deal with the results.   Freedom of speech is not freedom from reprocussions of that speech.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Here's what's great about America:

A guy can start a fast-food chain & run it however he damn well pleases.

That guy can say whatever he damn well pleases.

And I can choose not to eat there if I don't want to.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

And we are back to the part about how business, in America, are no longer allowed to turn down work based on subject matter. If gay marriage isn't about sex (which I agree, it isn't), and a photographer has photographed for gay people before, how can someone bring against them a sexual discrimination claim? Legally, they shouldn't be able to. Business owners should be allowed to opt out based on subject matter.

I agree that as a business I should be able to opt out of doing just about whatever I want. Maybe I run a restaurant and don't want to allow kids inside (this is happening). Or maybe I want to say "no shirt, no shoes, no service." Oh, that's happened too.

Maybe I don't want to teach a golfer because he's a major jerk with bad BO.

I think New Mexico (or whatever) got it wrong. I don't care what their reason was: I don't think you can force someone to photograph your whatever. I don't care if the reason was "no, because I don't like the shoes you are wearing right now."

Dan Cathy's free to do with his money and his freedom of speech what he wants. I'm free, whether I support gay rights or not, to eat his chicken or not.

P.S. I didn't read about the t-shirt guy except one post above, but I think he should be free to print whatever he wants - or to NOT print whatever he wants. It's his business, and thus, his property. I've never heard of a RIGHT to demand that someone else work for you or use their property for you. Again if he didn't want to print-t-shirts because the guy's name had a "Q" in it and he didn't like the letter Q then I say that's good for him.

P.P.S. This is kind of close, I realize, to saying that business owners are ALLOWED to discriminate. Don't like the color purple? Refuse to print a purple t-shirt? It'll hurt your business, probably, but if that's how you want to do it, then I say go ahead - discriminate against anyone who wants a purple t-shirt. Purple t-shirt fans don't have a "right" to make you do work for them, to demand that you do something that you don't want to do. And what about a guy who gives friends-and-family discounts. Is he discriminating against non-friends-and-familiy? Should everyone just get that super-awesome rate because doing otherwise is "discriminating" against someone? Please. Common sense is sorely lacking if people can be forced to do business they don't want to do. These aren't "public" facilities - like a library, schooling, getting a driver's license, whatever.

[Doctorfro]

Wow!  The thread that wouldn't die.  I find it both sad and yet amusing that many of those who oppose the "religious" or "Christian" make very angry responses. They accuse hate yet they spew as much.  They accuse discrimination by CFA yet there is none, just an opinion.  They seem to think that all people of faith are religious.  There's a difference between faith and being "religious".  Some people are both but not all.  Guess I'm loving all the sweeping generalizations.  And note....I'm not saying all are doing this, but many.  I've also seen scripture twisted every which way but loose and taken way out of context.  I'm not surprised by that.  I see that all the time and, yes, sometimes within the church walls.  My wish is that everyone would see that we are all flawed in one way or another (sinful, if you would) and pointing fingers, making accusations does nothing but make our society an unpeaceful one.  But the bible also tells us there will always be wars and rumors of wars (Matt. 24:6....lol)

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

I agree. As an agnostic I don't believe we currently have the knowledge to prove it one way or the other, so there's no basis to question someone's intelligence for believeing in those things.

Do you mean that seriously?

What do you mean by prove "it" one way or the other? Scientific proof is going to trump millenia old superstitions any day of the week.There isn't even a debate, It is over.

I know I am flogging a dead horse here, but truly, why or even HOW couldn't you question the intelligence of people who believe in something that they have been told which is based on nothing in human experience?

No one has ever shown anything that would go close to passing serious scrutiny in terms of proving that God exists. If it could be done, belief in God would not be faith (meaning superstition) it would be an accepted fact and a part of life.

Why don't people in non Christian countries share the same faith as Christians? Why should geography come into it?

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion.

Christopher Hitchens

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Do you mean that seriously?

What do you mean by prove "it" one way or the other? Scientific proof is going to trump millenia old superstitions any day of the week.There isn't even a debate, It is over.

I jnow I am flogging a dead horse here, but truyly, why or even HOW couldn't you question the intelligence of people who believe in something that they have been told which is based on nothing in human experience?

No one has ever shown anything that would go close to passing serious scrutiny in terms of proving that God exists. If it could be done, belief in God would not be faith (meaning superstition) it would be an accepted fact and a part of life.

Why don't people in non Christian countries share the same faith as Christians? Why should geography come into it?

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion.

Christopher Hitchens

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Hard to believe you've never heard of Agnosticism (based on your idignation); it's quite serious.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Hard to believe you've never heard of Agnosticism (based on your idignation); it's quite serious.

A lot of agnostics are as ignorant as those who believe in God, because they reduce the issue to a coin with two sides where they (hackneyed term, I know) sit on the fence.

If anyone can point to a  SINGLE EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND that would make an atheist question his position, please direct me to it.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Shorty

A lot of agnostics are as ignorant as those who believe in God, because they reduce the issue to a coin with two sides where they (hackneyed term, I know) sit on the fence.

If anyone can point to a  SINGLE EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND that would make an atheist question his position, please direct me to it.

Yeah, much better to pick a side and pound your fist.  Better to just say "SCIENCE!" and poke fun at those with religious beliefs in the mistaken belief that it makes you seem smarter.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Shorty

If anyone can point to a  SINGLE EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND that would make an atheist question his position, please direct me to it.

Boom! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/virgin-mary-in-a-tree_n_1671270.html Put that in your pipe and smoke it! (And I only had to go back 3 weeks to find it!)

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

Yeah, much better to pick a side and pound your fist.  Better to just say "SCIENCE!" and poke fun at those with religious beliefs in the mistaken belief it makes you seem smarter.

What?

Of course one should poke fun at adults who don't allow themselves to think.  Again.....ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE. Please.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Boom! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/virgin-mary-in-a-tree_n_1671270.html  Put that in your pipe and smoke it!   (And I only had to go back 3 weeks to find it!)

OMG -I've shot myself in the foot! Here's another one. Sorry guys!!!!!

[Shorty]

Oh shit....

But my faith remains unshaken. I can still see her.

[Harmonious]

I wonder if Christopher Hitchens is now thinking:

"Damn, if only I hadn't listened to Shorty! This place is freaking HOT!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/arts/christopher-hitchens-is-dead-at-62-obituary.html?pagewanted=all

[Wisguy]

I like how those who defend bigotted viewpoints try to flip it back on those who support equality for all be claiming the latter group is intolerant.  Yes, I'm intolerant of bigotry.  Unless you yourself happen to be a bigot, you should be too.

Probably the finest human beings I have ever met are my mom's best friend and her husband.  They are extremely devoted to their church, donating signficant amounts of not just money but time to their church and while they have taught Sunday school (a self-serving activity promoting their religion), they have also spent thousands of hours over many years actively assisting in numerous genuine (i.e. non-religious) charitable activities to benefit other people.  They are invariably kind (but nonetheless have a sense of humor), warm, generous people who believe that people should be kind and fair to one another without regard to any of the various classifications that we use to divide ourselves; caveat:  I've never spoken to them about gay marriage and don't know their views on it, although I am confident that they would support full rights for everyone, albeit perhaps cached in civil union terms.

Christians like this couple, though, from my experiences in my fifth decade of living in America, are statistically almost non-existant.  I can count on one hand the number of other people I have met in my entire life who are also both very devoutly religious and very good people.  I'll refer back to my Ghandi quote:  overwhelmingly, most Christians are very unlike Christ.  Take away the bomb strapped to a teenager's chest as he runs toward an assembly of those different from him or the masked fanatic sawing off an infidel's head with a knife in front of a video camera, and the average highly religious Christian in America has a lot more in common with the Taliban than he or she has with me.  That is because I am willing to accept a society in which people are free to believe what they want and do not hate those who are different from me, but most devoutly religious people seek to impose their beliefs on others and hate (or at least dislike and distrust) those who are different.

The bottom line is that so-called modern theistic religions (primarily Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - I'll confess ignorance about most of the world's other significant religions, but perhaps that's a good thing - perhaps they they are less well-known because they are less intrusive into others' lives) are based on primitive mythology from the bronze and early iron ages.  Sure, monogamy and respecting one's parents are a good thing, when one of the ancient holy books isn't preaching something entirely different.  The return of the Israelites from Egypt to their traditional homelands was a wonderful thing, isn't it?  Yes, unless you happened to be one of the Canaanites and other non-Israelites against whom Moses and Joshua practiced a genocidal campaign of warfare and conquest (worshipping a "false idol" in those days got holy Moses - one of the holiest of prophets out of any holyman in Christianity and even Islam, too) so peeved that he ordered you killed.  Opposing slavery is admirable, isn't it?  Well, maybe if it applied to everyone, not just a prohibition against enslaving fellow Muslims.  The western New Testament, with its four gospels, is the true word of Christ, isn't it?  Yes, except for those other 50 or so gospels that were rejected at the Council of Nicaea as being less advantageous to have as the state religion of Rome.  Yep, that Lord sure does work in mysterious ways (biggest cop-out excuse in the history of the human race).

I'll take a scenario from the Ricky Gervais movie The Invention of Lying (great premise, mediocre comedy, horrible romantic comedy):  If there was no such thing as religion, and someone came up to you, told you some tales about deities and prophets, tales that were from 1400 to 3000 years old, with outrageous miraculous events that were altogether unsubstantiated by modern science, told you that if you believed everything he said and followed his set of rules derived from these ancient stories, met with him and some other people to discuss these tales every week, and by the way, gave him money to help him "get out the word," that you would go to a magical happy-happy place when you died, would you believe him?  Hell no - you'd conclude that he was either a con-artist or he was deranged and belonged in an inpatient psychiatric facility.  In the Gervais movie, religion cannot exist in a world in which everyone tells the truth, but once someone does invent the lie of religion, it takes off because everyone is all-trusting and inherently gullible.  But in real life, the majority of people believe these tales because 1) they are brainwashed into belief from early in their childhood; 2) they are pressured into conformity by their religious community; and/or 3) they are afraid of death and are so desparate to get to heaven that they'll follow the church line.

By all means, please feel free to be as religious or non-religous as you like, provided you keep your religion to yourself or to those who invite you to share your beliefs.  A person's choice of religion is a very personal choice, as personal as how he or she wants to conduct his or her love life.  So, just as I don't want to know if Bamagrad and his partner (I won't make assumptions - as I said before, the biggest homophobe I knew in college came out of the closet in grad school, so you never can tell) put on Batman-and-Robin costumes and head to their bedroom with a gallon of chocolate syrup, I also don't want to know the intimate details of what goes on with his religious beliefs.  Pray your hearts out in your home and at your church.  Just don't try to foist your beliefs on me or change my country's laws to conform to your religious beliefs rather than rational thought and universal fairness.

The thing that religious people forget is that if they personally don't believe in marrying someone of the same gender, that BibleThumpinMan is free to choose not to marry another man and PrayerGirl isn't required to shack up with another woman. It's very simple, if you don't want to do that, then don't .  Marital equality does not infringe in any way on your ability to choose your own partner - it really doesn't effect you in any way.  Marital inequalty laws do hurt others.  When your religious beliefs hurt others (not just cult leaders forcibly consummating their marriages to 13 year old brides), then you shouldn't get to impose them on others.

Alcoholic beverages are outlawed in some Middle Eastern countries and probably every person on this board thinks that's absurd - if your religion says don't drink alcohol, then refrain from doing it rather than outlawing it, right?  How is a fundamentalist Muslim trying to force his beliefs about alcohol on others any different than a fundamentalist Christian trying to force his beliefs about marriage on others?  I can assure you that far greater evil and tragedy occurs because of alcohol than because two people who love each other and who want to commit to each other for a lifetime happen to be of the same gender.

The irony of anti-gay bigotry is that a lot of it is based on some narrow and antiquated conception of wild gay promiscuity of the 1980's NYC or SF club scene.  Marital equality has absolutely nothing to do with promiscuity, it's about couples who want to commit to monogamous relationships.  If heterosexual couples are rewarded with benefits when they choose to be (presumptively) lifelong partners, why shouldn't gay couples have the same rewards for the same level of commitment to each other?

[Harmonious]

Bigot: "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Well, none of those types posting on this thread, are there? Seems those so quick to classify everyone except themselves as bigots had better look in the mirror.